HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-10/18/2006
James F. King, President
Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President
Peggy A. Dickerson
Dave Bergen
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 111'9
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (6311 765-1892
Fax (6311 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
RECEIVi::O .t rf4a..
1!,'I5Il,u
~~nY2 'Jj.
~--~ -~&f..(':..r~ ~
MINUTES
Souil,uld Tc,v.n Clerk
wednesday, october 18, 2006
6: 30 PM
Present were: James King, President
Jill Doherty, vice-president
peggy Dickerson, Trustee
Dave Bergen, Trustee
E. Brownell Johnston, Esq.
Assistant Town Attorney for Trustees
Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Friday, November 10, 2006 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: wednesday, November 15, 2006 at 6:30 PM
WORK SESSION: 5:30 PM
APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of August 15, 2006 (Moorings)
TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, everyone. welcome to our
October meeting. My name is Jim King. I happen to be
the lucky one to be president of this club. I would like
to introduce the rest of the board; Dave Bergen to my far
left; Peg Dickerson; next we have Jill Doherty, she is
the vice-president.
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): A little louder please.
TRUSTEE KING: Can you hear me now?
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: vice-president Jill Doherty; myself;
Lauren Standish, she's the office manager; usually in
this seat is John Holzapfel. I'll give you a little
background on that.
John was a Town Trustee when I first got on the
page 1
OCTMIN-Final
D
2
board eleven years ago. Last year Al Krupski was elected
to the Town Board. That left a vacancy on our board.
what the Town Board did is appointed John Holzapfel to
fill that slot for the remainder of the year. I might
add it was a very wise choice for the Town Board.
John did a fantastic job, he was a great trustee.
He was a science teacher, very knowledgable in the marine
district, what goes on, and he had a lot of common
sense. He was a real asset to us. He resigned as of
october 7.
Because we have a new election coming up, we will
have a new trustee elected to fill out the remaining year
term. whoever gets elected will have a tough act to
follow, I can tell you that. But we really appreciated
John's service and he did a great job. I wish he could
be here so I could thank him more, but we'll be talking
to him later. Thank you.
Next, Brownell Johnston. Brownell is our legal
advisor. He takes care of the some of the legal issues we
have. We seem to be getting a lot more of those issues
as time goes on and things get more complicated.
sometimes there is a member from the CAC, which is
the Conservation Advisory council. They go out on site
inspections, just as we do, and give us a report on what
they see and what they recommend. John wilder is the
member that should be here tonight. I don't know if he's
going to be here or if he's just late.
This board has been very active in the last few
years. We rewrote chapter 97, which is the Wetland
code. It's now chapter 275. we'll be looking at that to
be making more revisions to it and keep it updated. I
don't know if you call it a living document.
we just about completed a Mooring code. It's going
to be submitted to Town Board. It was submitted once,
came back to us to try to look at it and do some more
work on it.
The shellfish code is being revised. we have some
road runoff projects in the works. So I think we are
doing a pretty good job. Not to toot our own horn, but
we are working at it. with that being said, I would like
to start the meeting.
MR. JOHNSTON: By the way, we have somebody keeping us
honest here.
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, yes. we had a recorder, Florence
D
3
wiles, she used to be here doing the same job wayne is
doing. she took a position as a teacher. she is no
page 2
OCTMIN-Final
longer ~oing to be doing our recording.
Th1S is Wayne Galante. He's going to be our
recorder now, keeps track of everything everybody says,
including me, unfortunately. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I may add a comment also. At the last
Town Board meeting, anybody who watches the Town Board
meetings on TV or goes to Town Board meetings, there was
a member of the audience that got up and told the Town
Board she had gotten a feeling from discussions with the
trustees that the trustees had made a decision already on
whether or not to appeal a legal decision, that being the
Beth Manzanobile case.
I just want to go on public record that that person
had not talked to any of the trustees. So she had made
this statement without talking to the trustees, and I
just want to clarify that in public record. okay? Thank
you.
TRUSTEE KING: DO you want to set the date for the next
field inspection or change it?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, I think everybody agreed to
November 10; Friday the 10th.
TRUSTEE KING: Motion?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
The next regular meetin~ will be wednesday, November 15
at 6:30. work session 1S at 5:30.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Motion to approve.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
I have not seen the minutes of August.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's for the board meetin~.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Our regular meeting also. I 11 follow-up
with her.
I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for
september, 2006. A check for $8,476.79 was Forwarded to
the supervisor's office for the General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES: public notices are posted on the Town
Clerk's bulletin board for review.
o
4
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
vincent & Eileen Flaherty - SCTM#92-1-8
Monte & carolyn Redman - SCTM#128-4-21
Robert & Susan somerville - SCTM#90-4-7
Andrew weiner - SCTM#90-4-7
Eve Macsweeney - SCTM#50-2-13
Stepan Minakyan - SCTM#94-1-21
page 3
OCTMIN-Final
Mary VanCott - SCTM#111-14-23
Michael & Beth Neumann - SCTM#107-1-12
Linda Sanford - SCTM#81-3-27.1
Karnick & Haci Garipian - SCTM#44-1-1
Nancy R. ROSS and Others - SCTM#123-8-22.2
Eugene & MaryAnn Krupski - SCTM#100-2-3
Carol witschieben & Janet witschieben Larsen -
SCTM#99-1-5
Joann walker - SCTM#66-1-33
warren & Susan Cannon - SCTM#112-1-14
Don & Mary Jo Murphy - SCTM#119-1-9.1
Doug Dey - SCTM#81-3-24
Mary zupa - SCTM#81-1-16.7
IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS:
TRUSTEE KING: First we have Resolutions and
Administrative Permits. DO we waive these or do we want
them to go in one by one?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we can do one, two, four and five. One
two and fou r.
TRUSTEE KING: what we try and do is move these things
along if we can. we used to be here until one o'clock in
the morning. We are trying to get out a little better,
more timely schedule. I ask the people if you have
comments during public hearings, if you have comments to
make, try and keep them concise and limit them to five
minutes.
we've had people go on and on sometimes and it's
really unnecessary. If you have a long letter, we can
accept the letter. It will be put into the record. YOU
can summarize it, but please, don't read five, ten-page
letters because a lot of people are here, they want to
get their business taken care of, they are out here, so.
we'll try and do it that way. so we can do one --
MR. JOHNSTON: Jim, a second. DO you want to highlight
the postponed ones?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes, sorry. Thank you, for reminding me.
o
5
we had some postponements and I don't want anybody
sitting through here waiting for something to come up
that we are going to postpone.
Number one under Wetland permits, Arthur R. Torell
is postponed.
Number six, Nancy ROSS and others, that has been
postponed.
Number Eight, Grace Burr Hawkins on Fishers Island
has been postponed.
Number 13, George Guimaraes, that's another Fishers
Island, has been postponed.
Number 14, Eve MacSweeney, has been postponed.
Page 4
OCTMIN-Final
MR. JOHNSTON: There is another Macsweeney.
TRUSTEE KING: This is number 14.
Number 15, vincent P. Basilice, has been postponed.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number five under coastal Erosion and
wetland permits. susan S. Rentchler, on Fishers Island,
has been postponed.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: TOp of page four.
TRUSTEE KING: Number five on page four. Susan Rentchler
is also postponed.
MR. JOHNSTON: Was number two coastal Erosions Wetland
permit, was that postponed, was just the one of the two?
TRUSTEE KING: I think so.
MR. JOHNSTON: okay.
TRUSTEE KING: The one --
MR. JOHNSTON: Because there is two.
TRUSTEE KING: I believe one is for a stairway and one is
for replanting.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
TRUSTEE KING: So on the resolution of administrative
permits, we'll do one, two and four. we had no problems
and I'll make a motion to approve those.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
Number three, this was a little unusual. I looked at
this one. what these people are doing -- this was first
advertised as a public hearing. If there is anybody here
to speak about this one, with Monte and carolyn Redman,
peconic Bay Boulevard, if there is anyone wants to speak
to this, because it was advertised as a public hearing,
you are more than welcome to comment on it.
when I went to look at it, what it was was a simple
reduction on the size of an existing deck and replacing,
D
6
rebuilding the side deck to the house. very, very
minor. And it should have been in as an administrative
permit, which is a lesser fee.
we developed the administrative permit so that
people who want to do something minor on their home, a
simple thing like putting a window in or adding a small
deck, it really doesn't warrant notifying your neighbors,
having a public hearing and make somebody go through the
whole process. So this qualifies for that. That's why we
put it on as an administrative permit. It's really down
sizing. The original application as a wetland
Application was found inconsistent with the old LWRP.
under administrative permit it is so small it doesn't
even qualify to be reviewed under LWRP. So that's the
reason for that.
Like I say, they are taking two or three feet off
the deck, so it will be smaller. I want to make a motion
Page 5
OCTMIN-Final
to approve it as an administrative permit.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
MR. NATALIE: Kevin Natalie, landscape architect on behalf
of Monte and carolyn Redman.
TRUSTEE KING: I spoke to the owner when I went out on
field inspection and I asked her, it's really such a
simple thin9' why didn't you apply through the
administratlve permit.
MR. NATALIE: Maybe it was a misunderstanding at the town
and they advised us to go this route and so we were just
playing by the rules of the board, the town.
unfortunately, the green slips came back to us. I don't
know if I need to submit that for the record.
TRUSTEE KING: It was just a minor --
MR. NATALIE: I appreclate that. Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: She will get a refund on the fee, part of
the fee.
MR. NATALIE: very good, thank you, very much. Have a
good evening.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: patricia Moore, Esq., on behalf of Ruth
Falbel Schwartz, requests an administrative permit to
landscape the cleared areas and add privacy vegetation
along Gagen's Landing Road. Located 2350 Clearview
Avenue, southold. SCTM#70-10-28.3.
we all looked at this and the plan in the file
o
7
permit. The plan was fine. The only comment, we wanted
to make sure that the planting, the revegetation planting
along Gagen's Landing is planted on the lnside of the
property line so it doesn't encroach on town property.
MS. MOORE: Yes, that's the plan.
TRUSTEE KING: Are they planting trees, pat?
MS. MOORE: Um, yes, they have, they were thinking of some
kind of either evergreens or trees. I don't know that
they actually made a decision on that yet. You know,
just privacy screening.
TRUSTEE KING: If they are goin9 to plant trees, they
should plant them pretty well lnside the property line,
because trees grow and get bigger.
MS. MOORE: They are not going to encroach on the town's
right of way. One, they can't do it, but secondly --
TRUSTEE KING: But if you plant the tree on the property
line, as the tree grows it will end up over on town
property, you know.
MS. MOORE: My understanding is that they are going to be
planting them on their property. I think they have the
landscaper, that is, I would hope do that, but.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can we see, once they decide what they
Page 6
OCTMIN-Final
want to do, could we see a plan?
MS. MOORE: what we could do is send you a letter and
advise you if it's going to be cedar trees, which grow
more round and closer to the property line, or trees that
have canopies. If it's canopy trees, do you have any --
do you care or you don't care?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: well, what we want to do is communicate
with Highway Department because they are the one that has
to maintain that road, and we want to find out if it's
going to be a problem for them.
Because the plan you have, you just said privacy
plants, and if it's kind of on the llne --
MS. MOORE: I don't know that they actually made a
decision, so.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And that's fine. But once they make a
decision, if they could let us know, then we could work
with you.
MS. MOORE: sure, that's fine.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to approve
administrative permit for the schwartz's with the
condition that once they decide what they are doing, they
let us know, show us and we could review the plantlngs
o
8
with them.
MS. MOORE: I'll say here keep them on the property.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Keep them inside the property line.
MS. MOORE: Right.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES.
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Did we do any duck blinds?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I talked to Don Dzenkowski, our bay
constable, and he inspected it, he said there is one
other duck blind in that area and where they want to put
this duck blind is fine. I think they have to be 100
feet, has to be 100 feet circulation around from where
they are shooting and he said it will fit and will be
fine.
So I'll make a motion to approve Frank Scholl, Jr.,
for a duck blind in wickham's creek, access is public.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: Five, Applications for Amendments,
Extensions and Transfers.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll be glad to do number one. Again,
these are not public hearings but we do welcome some
brief comments on these.
1. Mary zupa requests an amendment
to construct a docking facility 20 feet
previously approved location. Located:
page 7
to permit #6214
west of the
580 Basin Road in
OCTMIN-Final
southold.
The board went out and looked at this and it's a
little bit of an unusual situation because there is a
dock that is in the approximate location of where the
zupas had proposed to place their dock, their new dock,
that we had ordered taken out, and that dock does have to
be taken out. It's not the zupa's property. It's the
Paradise cove property owners Association dock and they
had to take it out.
In looking at this, I came up with what I thought
might be a good solution to this issue in that I felt
that there would be a lot of damage to the environment
caused by taking out an old dock plus putting in a new
dock, and obviously the costs involved.
so I was wondering if the dock could simply be, the
structure itself could be simply transferred or sold for
a minimal price from the Paradise cove property OWners
o
9
Association to the zupas.
we 90t a letter from Cathy Masciano saying they
agreed wlth that. since then, I know Paradise point
Property OWners Association brought up a concern that in
the reconfiguration of the main dock down there, that
what the trustees had directed paradise property OWners
Association to do, it meant moving that dock ten feet in
the direction of where this proposed dock is and
reconfiguring it, so it's longer than it is presently.
The results of all this being that to put this dock,
what the zupas are requesting to the location where the
existing dock is would put the two docks very close
together and the feeling was that that could be a problem
as far as navigation of boats in and out of these docks.
I went down there tonight and I looked at these and
there is approximately 40 feet between these two docks as
presently exists. But, again, what I'm looking at now is
a plan of what we asked Paradise Property OWners
Association to do, which was an extension quite a bit
longer than what the fin~ers of those docks are.
so I would agree it s a problem to bring this dock
over to where the dock is presently that we ordered to be
removed, to do the trade off, as I wanted. So that's,
like I said, nothin9 is simple with these applications.
TRUSTEE KING: Especlally in that neighborhood.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: particularly down there. So, I don't
know if there is anybody here who would like to make any
brief comments on this.
MR. ZUPA: Yes. My name is Victor Zupa on behalf of my
wife, the applicant, Mary Zupa.
The board had previously issued a permit allowing
the dock which was 20 feet, I guess east of what we asked
Page 8
OCTMIN-Final
for now, and the problem with that is where the dock was
located was in less than a foot of water and any boat at
that location would cause an obstruction for ingress and
egress to the canal. And it appears as if the only
possible solution would be to put it, the only place that
we could possibly have a dock is put it in the present
location.
The dock that was permitted, as the board knows,
the dock that was permitted for the association was done
without the permission of the property owner Mary Zupa
and because of that, among other things, that is
presently on appeal in an Article 78 proceeding,
o
10
unfortunately, before court.
So if the property owner is to have any dock, that's
the only possible location for it. I realize though,
since it comes out 40 feet, the board approved on the
association dock, my opinion, and they were three feet
wide, they looked to be somewhat extraordinarily long for
somebody to walk out to the end of that. I don't know
how many pilings would be in place but it would seem to
wallow.
I mean, without agreeing with that, there are other
issues in the dispute between the association and the
zupas, without getting into it, that's what I think is a
more appropriate solution is shorten those fingers, which
I don't believe are going to be usable at 40 feet long,
three feet wide. That's without conceding the
appropriateness of the permit being issued in the first
place on behalf of the association without the land
owner's permission. But I'll answer any other questions
you may have.
But with respect to that, we thought the proposal
Mr. Bergen made was acceptable to us and would cause the
least amount of damage to the environment and we would be
willing to pay a reasonable amount for the dock to the
association.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have a hydrographic survey that is
stamped received October 19, 2005, and if you would like
to come up and see this. It shows that where your
original dock location is, at one end is barely off the
bottom; at the far end is in three-and-a-half to 4.6 feet
of water.
MR. ZUPA: (perusing.) Yes, that, I should go back and
talk into the microphone.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: sure. Thank you.
MR. ZUPA: I don't know how those measurements came out
because when Bobby, when Sea Level Mapping put the stake
in, I actually walked out there and you could wade out
there and then when the DEe came out to deny the permit,
page 9
OCTMIN-Final
they said there was less than one foot of water in there,
and they actually sent us a letter denying and said we
can't allow a dock to go in with less than one feet of
water.
So I don't know
those figures. That
you know, I'm trying
how Sea Level Mapping arrived at
might have been the original one,
to look --
o
11
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The survey says september 1, 2005, and
amended October 4, 2005. That's what it says on here.
TRUSTEE KING: There could have been more shoaling there
in a year's time.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Absolutely.
MR. ZUPA: I don't know if that's the original survey that
was put in with the application, but my understanding was
there was a change made by the board, and then cathy
Masciano sent in a letter sayin~ she had a new survey, if
I could show the board that, WhlCh doesn't have those
depths on it, that was done to prepare it in accordance
with the ultimate resolution reached by the board. If
you like, I could approach and bring this up.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. Sure.
MR. ZUPA: I'm not sure which one was approved, offhand.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have that in.
MR. ZUPA: Is that the same one?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's the same, but doesn't have the
depth. Thank you.
MR. ZUPA: That's my only copy.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Here you go. Because we have it.
(handing.)
Is there anybody else here who would like to speak,
either regarding this application -- yes, sir? Again, if
you keep your comments brief, we appreciate it.
MR. ANGEL: My name is Steven Angel, Essex, Hefter &
Angel. We are the attorneys for paradise point
Association. And just a couple of quick comments.
First, in connection with this concept of
permission, I have to say two things. And I did supply
you, I believe, with some documentation within the last
day or two. There is an easement over the shoreline of
the 580 parcel, the parcel that is the subject of this
application, that runs along the entire basin side of the
parcel and that easement has been confirmed by the courts
and that easement grants to my client, the association,
the free and unobstructed access to the basis and canal
for all purposes, including to construct and maintain
bulkheads, jetties, docks for boating and the maintenance
of those types of structures.
So what we have is effectively -- and that was done
in a deed in 1989 by the predecessor in title. so, in
page 10
OCTMIN-Final
effect -- not in effect. In reality, in legality, we are
the ones who control -- we being the association --
o 12
control that shore front.
Also, Mr. Zupa made reference to the Article 78
proceeding that he brought from the determinations made
by this board in connection with the dock permit
application that the association made, which resulted in
the reconfiguration that Trustee Bergen was referring
to. That Article 78 was just recently decided, I thlnk
October 11. I think Mr. and Mrs. zupa's petition was
dismissed and your determination for the reconfiguration
of the dock was confirmed. I think I supplied you with a
copy that we just got it off the computer, fortuitously,
yesterday.
I would reiterate what is stated in my letter, which
was also mentioned briefly by Trustee Bergen, that I
think that the location of a dock to serve the zupa
parcel in this particular case or this particular
location would literally defeat the purpose of that
reconfigured dock application. I think if you scale it
off you are looking at ten or 11 feet between the most
close dock and the proposed location without even boats
moored at it.
I'm here to answer any of your questions. I should
point out, also, and it is reflected in the decision of
the court, in response to this, in the dismissal of the
Article 78 proceeding, that in large part your
determination to move the docks ten feet closer to where
the new dock, where they seek to put the new dock, was
done at the request of Mr. and Mrs. Zupa for greater
access to their dock on the 385 property. So we are
being put in sort of a Catch 22 situation. we moved it
away from them and now they want to put a dock in there
to effectively defeat the use of one side of it.
I would be pleased to answer any other questions.
Any questions?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I do have the material here that you have
submitted both yesterday and today. So we are aware of
the Article 78 decision that was in favor of the
trustees.
I am also, I have the other document that you talked
about that talks about this easement with free,
unobstructed access to the basin or canal and to include
the construction and maintenance of bulkheads, jetties or
docks. we are doing that. We have done that and we
granted -- what we have done already meets that
page 11
OCTMIN-Final
o
13
definition with allowing this longer dock to be
reconfigured.
MR. ANGEL: I agree. I'm not saying that the trustees
have any obligations there. What I'm saying is that in
the chain of title to the Zupa property there was a
relinquishment of rights and acknowledgment that the
association had free and unobstructed use.
You certainly have control over where the docks are
placed but as between the owners of that property and the
holders of the easement, their rights have been defined
among them.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are getting into what I'll
little bit of a gray area. we are not here to
say whether the court's decision is correct or
with regard to the easement or anything. That
what we are here to determine tonight. All we
to determine tonight is to act on an amendment
permit of a previously approved dock to see if
be moved over and placed here.
MR. ANGEL: I understand that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And that's what we are dealing with
here. I don't want to get mixed up with other issues
here.
MR. ANGEL: That's fine. We have taken our position
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The other thing, I know we already said
that this approved plan with two 40-foot swings, what the
trustees approved for the paradise Association, is there
any way the paradise Point Property OWners Association
would agree to cut that down, that length from 40 feet to
a lesser amount so we can then get this other dock into
where there is presently a dock?
Again, what I'm looking at here is the harm to the
environment that is being done because of this battling
going on between these parties. And I'm trying to
mitigate the harm to the environment.
plus, in essence, save both people some money with
the cost of ripping out a dock and cost of putting in a
dock. That's all I'm trying to see if we can
accomplish. If we can't, we can't. But that's what I'm
trying to do.
MR. ANGEL: In quick answer to your question, at the risk
of sounding abrupt, it's not. I obviously have to take it
back to my client. But I think that some of the members
of the board are aware that the approved dock
say is a
try and to
incorrect
is not
are here
of a
that could
Page 12
OCTMIN-Final
D
14
configuration did result in the loss of two or three
slips, I believe. Four slips. So there was already a
compromise as part of that approval process.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You answered the question. The answer is
no.
MR. ANGEL: Any other questions?
TRUSTEE KING: It's not going to go anywhere.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: what I would like to do is move to table
this so the board can go out and look at the staked
location of where the Zupas propose this to go, because
it was not staked as we were out there the other day, and
that way we can get a better idea exactly where we are
looking at.
MR. ZUPA: If I may make a couple of comments, briefly.
First, on the record, Mr. Angel is absolutely incorrect.
we never asked for the dock to be moved over ten feet.
what we asked for was the extension to be removed. That
was totally to the extent a dock was placed there, the
extension should not be there. It would seem that the
dock moved in to where it was along the lines of the
settlement proposal that we offered them that would be on
the 75x75 track would be acceptable. That's the first
thing.
The second thing is the court has never affirmed
that the easement gives the association the permission of
the land owner visa vie an application for a dock
permit. The wetlands code specifically provides that you
must have the permission of the land owner. Mr. Angel's
interpretation is his interpretation.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay. Thank you, very much. I move we
table this application.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry. If it's very brief. Because this
is not a public hearing.
MS. COLLIER: IS this on the record?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, it is.
MS. COLLIER: Andrea Collier. My husband asked me to be
present to put somethin9 on the record. It's just our
feeling that a lot of tlme and money has already been
spent by you and the taxpayers on this configuration and
our main concern, as you have heard before, this is on
the record, um, we are very concerned about the adherence
to the one-third rule. so anything that is going to
cause that to be compromised, with what has already been
D
15
page 13
OCTMIN-Final
given to the association, we would be certainly against
ln violating the one-third rule.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
We have a motion and a second. All in favor of
tabling this application? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of
carol witschieben and Janet Witschieben Larsen requests
an amendment to permit #6436 to construct a one-story
addition with 18.4 feet on the west and 26.4 feet on the
east with a screened-in porch and covered entry way that
is.approxim~tely 64 long. Located: 1000 Sound Beach
Drlve, Mattltuck.
TRUSTEE KING: Can I interrupt for a second, Pat. Don
wilder, the CAC member I talked about earlier, will be
here.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The board Looked at this and didn't
have a problem with it. CAC supports the application
with the condition of a drainage plan. It's consistent
with LWRP and is there anything else you wanted to add?
MS. MOORE: No, I'm here to respond to any questions. The
drainage, there are drywells shown all throughout this
plan.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments from the board?
TRUSTEE KING: I think this is basically a down sizing,
isn't it, from what they originally wanted?
MS. MOORE: It is. It's been a reconfiguration and it's
now a one-story from a two-story.
TRUSTEE KING: It looked a little simpler to me.
MS. MOORE: It is. The pool right now, it had already
been approved. we may end up having to relocate the
pool, but that will be later on. Rl~ht now we have the
pool in its original location and we 11 keep it there
until otherwise. Thank you.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If nobody has any other comments I'll
make a motion to approve the amendment to permit #6436 to
construct a one-story addition as stated.
Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Boulevard planning on behalf of Don and
Mary JO Murphy requests an amendment to permit #6303 to
remove the existing residence and reconstruct within the
o ~
same footprint as the existing residence. Located: 9905
Nassau Point Road, cutchogue.
The board has been out there twice, recently, and we
compared surveys and what is out there and we feel that
page 14
OCTMIN-Final
it is within the same footprint. And I see that it is
inconsistent but I don't see any LWRP report in the file.
SECRETARY STANDISH: It's in the original one.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me just look at that.
MR. LEHNERT: The new survey came back following the
existing footprint of the house.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The inconsistency is of course the 100
feet. It's 91 feet. And he mentions the same, sediment
controls and gutters, drywells and replantin~ and disease
resistant, drought tolerant landscaping to mlnimize
irrigation and fertilization.
The CAC approved. They support the application and
is there any comment from the board? (No response.)
MR. GROSSMAN: I'm here on the application when the
gentleman is finished, representing the opposing property
owner.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: DO we have any questions of the
applicant; the consultant to the applicant?
(NO response.)
I think you have answered all our questions
previously, so.
MR. LEHNERT: Thank you.
MR. GROSSMAN: Good evening members of the board, Adam
Grossman. I'm here on behalf of the adjacent property
owner, carl Hoelzl who is actually sittlng right next to
me.
I'm just here to give some submissions and speak
very briefly. I know you have a busy agenda and full
audience tonight. I have some photographs to submit,
memorandum, actually, of myself, and also one from my
client that I just wanted to submit into the record. I
know this is technically not a public hearing but I have
some documentation for you. (Handing).
I know that MS. Doherty, you indicated and the board
has concluded what has been done on the property is
consistent with the footprint in connection with the
original application. My client has indicated to me that
he questions whether in fact that is the case, but I'm
not going to, I'll honor whatever conclusion you have
made, but my client has actually submitted documentation
D
17
questioning that. we also have photographs as to what
was on the property, just to show what exactly occurred.
And I also submitted a brief memorandum of law.
Actually not of law, just an affirmation in opposition to
the application because my client is very much concerned
about his adjacent vacant property being ne~atively
impacted by the changes that were made and lt may be that
they are consistent with the original application and
maybe that is not the case.
page 15
OCTMIN-Final
My client is nevertheless concerned that in fact
what is changed in terms of footprint will in fact
enlarge the size of the ultimate structure and his
concern is it won't be consistent with the plan. I'm not
the planner, I was not the one who put the documentation
together. But my client is very concerned about that.
That's the reason I'm here this evening.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We questioned it, too. That's why we
went out again and we spent some time there and some time
reviewing everything in the file. um, and we all
concluded that with the measuring done and everything,
it's within the same footprint.
Does the board have anything --
MR. GROSSMAN: I appreciate your efforts. I just also
included in my affirmation, if in fact anythlng the
applicant did was in violation of what was originally
approved that that should be taken very seriously by the
board, that the board needs to address that. But it
sounds to me as if the board has concluded otherwise,
so.
I nevertheless wanted to have my submission as well
as any photographs because, again, I'm not an expert in
terms of what the dimensions are and in all honesty it
was a little hard for me, we don't have the whole file to
be able to review everything, but we nevertheless wanted
to be here to express Mr. Hoelzl's objections.
MR. HOELZL: My name is carl Hoelzl. There are several
things that I would like to bring up. The comment page
there, there is a new patio being put in. It's not the
existing patio. If you review the drawings, and it's
very hard to see it, there is a new patio. It's going to
be about two-and-a-half feet high, extending from the
house to the bluff. You see that in the elevation,
right, and the comment and the aerial photos, satellite
photos and the applicant's own surveys show that the
D
18
patio that was there before was much smaller and in a
different location. with that patio now being, I think
it's about 41 feet by 26 feet, going to the edge of the
bluff, there is going to be substantial runoff of that on
to the bluff, down the slope and possibly undermining the
slope there.
As to the comment that it was the footprint of the
original home, all right, the satellite photos, and I
have the surveys and the applicant has two surveys now.
The original one that he filed here and a new one now,
and you can see looking at those that the footprint of
the house is much larger than the original one. I have
copies here. If you don't have copies, I have copies to
show you that.
page 16
OCTMIN-Final
It was a substantial expansion of the footprint of
the home. YOU granted that he could reduce, knock down
the rear portion of the home and then when he came in,
after he did that, he came in and demolished the entire
front section of the home, okay, without coming back to
the Board of Trustees or the Building Department in any
way and demolished it. unless I had reported it, okay,
nothing would have happened and he would have gone
merrily on his way and it would have been framed out.
So my contention is that the footprint does not
cover or is in excess of the original footprint of the
house and that the patio which he says is the existing
patio, is not. And in essence he violated the permit and
we have a, basically, a total demolition of the
waterfront home within 25 feet of the bluff. I think the
photographs which I have given you and so forth, document
that.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. we are just reviewing as you
are telling us.
MR. HOELZL: I understand. There is a lot there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: okay, we are looking at the original
approval we ~ave back, the previous board gave February
15, 2006. I 11 just read what they approved. Wetland
permit to construct additions and alterations to existing
dwelling with conditions of a silt fence and line of hay
bales seaward of the house during construction. Drywells
to contain roof runoff non-turf, non-disturbance buffer
from existing house to the bluff and all as depicted on
the plans drawn by Boulevard planning 2/28/06.
We looked at the plans that we have here and that is
o
19
whac is chere now and whac chey are proposing.
MR. HOELZL: What happened on the proposal on the 15th of
February, he issued an outline of plans. No one ever saw
those additional plans. I don't know what additions he
has made and if you look at that from what he had
proposed on the 15th, the footprint has gone well beyond
what he proposed on the 15th.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: okay, we have the plans here from the
15th, from the approval date of the 15th. And as far as
what we are looking at, we don't feel that has changed.
MR. HOELZL: well, why aren't the plans in consonance with
the items I received from them showing the outline of the
modification?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: DO you have the plans dated 2/28/06?
MR. HOELZL: NO, I have the plans that were given to me, I
attended the meeting dated 2/15/06, and that was
originally given when I gave the initial set of
photographs to the board of trustees. I included that
package that was presented to me to appear before the
page 17
OCTMIN-Final
board meeting here. And that footprint is smaller than
what is there now. In essence, you have given him the
approval to demolish a waterfront home in its entirety
the footprint.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That is your opinion. Our opinion, we
have the plans shown here and in comparing the plans that
were approved February 15th and to these other plans now,
we feel that they are the same and it was not expanded.
MR. HOELZL: why do they differ from what was given out at
the meeting?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because we asked for a plan of what was
there and we don't see that they differ. We asked for
the new foundation plans and we don't see that they
differ. we took a good look at it.
MR. HOELZL: May I see it?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: sure.
MR. HOELZL: (perusing.) Thank you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: These are the plans that were submitted
originally and this is the patio that you had talked
about and there it is. The patio was there. It was there
when the plans were originally submitted. YOU allege the
patio was added on after the fact?
MR. LEHNERT: I do have the approved set of plans from the
Building Department.
MR. HOELZL: But they say "existing patio" on the
o
20
application and it is not. The photographs and their
surveys --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Excuse me, can you go back to the
microphone.
MR. HOELZL: Sure. I'm sorry.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you would step back to the
microphone. Again, I want to remind everyone, this is
not a public hearing. This is only an amendment to the
permit.
MR. HOELZL: I have the drawings here. I would like you
to compare the drawing the gentleman just looked at, the
first floor, and the drawings that they are proposing
now. YOU can see they are different.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: what is this dated?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: 10/28. It's the same.
MR. HOELZL: But the one you just showed me, the one that
was approved back then, you could see that the footprint
is dramatically different. That footprint does not cover
this footprint. It's very obvious. It's different.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This the last update 9/8/06. This is
11/1/05. That's why.
MR. HOELZL: That's the one you said was approved at the
meeting. I'm saying that one is different from the
original one and the one he has now, the foundation is
page 18
OCTMIN-Final
different from that. It's larger.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Your comment was that
TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is not a public hearing. we are
really not supposed to take comments.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: what your comment was, was the porch,
was different, and we were trying to show you the porch
is not different.
MR. HOELZL: I'm not talking the porch. I'm talking
here. If you overlay the foundations, it's different.
It's larger now than what was there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me just find the stamped one.
MR. HOELZL: All I ask is that you compare it, overlay
them and you can see the new one is larger. The
foundation that is there is larger.
MR. LEHNERT: Another comment to the board.
TRUSTEE KING: I want to table this thin9' look at the
prints and compare them. If the footprlnt is larger from
the original permit, we'll write the amendment to include
that enlargement, if that is so.
MR. LEHNERT: I provided a survey of the foundation as it
D
21
sits right now. You have that information. I provided
the, you know, the plans, amended plans.
TRUSTEE KING: Let me speak. This amendment reads, it's a
request to demolish the existing residence and
reconstruct within the same footprint as the existing
residence. If the older existing residence was smaller,
if this is just an amendment to reconstruct with this
increase in size. That's what we'll be looking at, if we
find this discrepancy.
Because like I say, this is not a public hearing. I
don't want this to turn into a debate. we'll be here all
night over this. we'll table it and find this out.
I make a motion to table this application.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I still don't know if it's necessary to
do that. I think we have all the information (perusing).
I don't know if we need to table it again. we put it
off, we had all these and reviewed them.
MR. LEHNERT: If it would make it easier, could I submit
the approved Building Department plans from the original
permit?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure.
MR. LEHNERT: (Handing).
TRUSTEE KING: where are the plans from the original
permit that we approved?
MR. LEHNERT: That's there. That got past from the
Building Department and was approved for a full permit.
MR. HOELZL: If you look at it, the foundation drawing is
page 19
OCTMIN-Final
now longer. Look here. It's quite clear. If you want
me to get the foundation drawing out now --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what we are looking at, the
foundation.
MR. HOELZL: That's the one approved by the Building
Department back then. I'm saying the new foundation is
now larger than that and the drawing shows it.
TRUSTEE KING: we are getting two different stories here.
MR. LEHNERT: That was the approved plan in the field.
MR. HOELZL: That's the old one, correct.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is the current approved plan by the
Building Department.
MR. HOELZL: Yes, and he's saying the footprint he has
there now overlays that. I'm saying it does not. I have
the plan here that says it doesn't overlay it. It comes
o
22
out further. It's obvious when you compare the two
drawings. We are not doing apples and oranges here. The
other plan is larger. The foundation and the floor plan
layout is larger. I don't know how this gentleman can
stand here and say it isn't.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The board has been out there several
times and looked at it. It's my feeling, looking at the
plans, and my understanding is the Building Department
has been out there and looked at it also. And my
understanding is we have all concluded that it is on the
identical footprint.
MR. HOELZL: Can I show you the other drawin9 again? You
can measure it. Take a ruler. I measured It.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would like to -- I don't know what
other proof we need. It shows the same as this.
MR. LEHNERT: The plans are there. The foundation survey
is there.
MR. HOELZL: The foundation survey is a new foundation
that was put in here to demolish the front. That's what
the foundation plan is. If you compare the floor plans
and put them side-by-side, okay, the difference is
obvious there.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll rescind my motion to table this
hearing.
MR. JOHNSTON: Are you making a motion to reopen?
TRUSTEE KING: I'll reopen it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
I'll state what I just stated, since we now reopened
it. we went out and looked at this a couple of times and
the building department has been out there and we all
concluded this is on the same footprint.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: where are you talking about? Are you
just talking about over here?
page 20
OCTMIN-Final
MR. HOELZL: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm confused because I thought you were
talking about the porch the whole time.
TRUSTEE KING: My point is if they expanded this size at
all, just re-write the amendment to include that
expansion.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And can I note this is out of our
jurisdiction, this part of it. This is well beyond 100
feet. It's out of our jurisdiction.
TRUSTEE KING: Then it's not even necessary.
D
23
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I'm trying to say. I thought
we were talking about the porch the whole time.
MR. HOELZL: I mentioned that this is now a two-and-a-half
foot raised patio to the edge of the bluff.
MR. LEHNERT: It's on the original approved plan.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you, for your comments and
concerns. I'll give this back to you. I would like to
thank everybody for their comments.
The board has gone out here several times and we
really have taken a good look at this and I would like to
make a motion to approve this amendment, and I will read
the conditions of the original permit for the record.
Those original conditions are still part of it. The CAC
supports this application, this amendment to this
application and the LWRP, original comments from
February, are, like I said, the typical setback, the hay
bales, drought tolerant landscape to minimize and the
~utters, down spouts and drywells which were all
lmplemented in the original permit.
so that therefore we find it deem this application
to be consistent, and I make a motion that we approve
this amendment according to the approved Building
Department plans which the Building Department approved
it on 4/7/06. That is the same plan that we have in our
file. And of course all the conditions of the original
permit still apply.
DO we have a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES.
Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Number four, Proper-T Permit Services on
behalf of Andrew Weiner requests an amendment to permit
#6072 to allow the use of three-pile bays in the
construction of the docking facility, as protection
against winter ice damage, and a one-year extension to
permit #6072 as issued on January 19, 2005. Located at
2185 westview Drive, Mattituck.
I'm just looking at this. Are you the speaker on
behalf of this application?
page 21
OCTMIN-Final
MR. FITZGERALO: Yes, I am. My name is Jim Fitzgerald. I
represent the weiners, and I would like to read that, if
I may. May I?
TRUSTEE KING: YOU want to read this into the record?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, if that's okay.
o
24
TRUSTEE KING: I don't see a reason for it.
MR. FITZGERALD: The reason I'm here, the reason I'm
standing here is because during the last inspection when
the trustees were out there, somebody, maybe the trustees
as a group, indicated that you were, how shall I put it,
not anxious to have three-pile bays. And that's why I
spent the time to make that list of stuff. And
particularly to bring you some really neat photographs of
all the three-pile bays.
TRUSTEE KING: Did you take pictures of the two-pile
docks?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. Some of them are included.
TRUSTEE KING: All of them?
MR. FITZGERALD: No, but not all the three-pile bays are
either.
TRUSTEE KING: (perusing.) This was built very heavy
because this gentleman has a dragger tied up to it.
There is a lot of weight there to the boat itself. He
goes out there with a handtruck. This is a two pile.
My feeling is, I've seen a lot of the docks in
Mattituck Creek. I seen three piles go up and two piles
go up. I don't have any problem with three piles across
the end of the dock to seal it in. That stops that end
from lifting up. The rest, I think, is unnecessary. I
really do. I think it's an unnecessary structure.
MR. FITZGERALD: IS that a change in the feeling of the
board? Because everybody --
TRUSTEE KING: As time goes on we try and reduce the
impacts in sizes, yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: why don't we approve the amendment for
one three pile and if in time you feel that is not enough
then you can come back and request another amendment and
see.
TRUSTEE KING: I know what they want. They want to try
and build it now while it's being built rather than add a
third piling after construction. I think it's
unnecessary. I lived Mattituck creek 42 years. I seen a
lot of two-pile docks go up in the air, I seen three-pile
docks go up in the air.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: what other docks are in the creek?
TRUSTEE KING: obviously the majority are two pile.
Except where, you know, you have a commercial
enterprise. I have a larger dock, but I'm on commercial
property.
page 22
OCTMIN-Final
o
25
MR. FITZGERALD: I didn't select these as being the right
ones. I just went out and took pictures of docks.
TRUSTEE KING: I understand. I been to Mattituck Creek.
I'm familiar with it. I know what the docks look like.
MR. FITZGERALD: I'm sure.
TRUSTEE KING: I just think it's unnecessary. It's going
to save the client money, too.
MR. FITZGERALD: But the point is that it amounts, in
effect, in the mind of my client, insurance. And they
are willing to pay the premium to have the work done.
TRUSTEE KING: There is no insurance to what mother nature
wants to do.
MR. FITZGERALD: I understand that.
TRUSTEE KING: YOU could put a five-pile dock. If we have
a bad enough storm, that's going to go up in the air.
MR. FITZGERALD: But I think the chances of a three-pile
dock surviving a given ice effect are better than two
pi 1 e.
TRUSTEE KING: I think a two-pile dock with three piles at
the end is sufficient enough. I don't want to this to
turn into a debate. Jill has made a proposal. we'll
approve two piles with three at the end of the dock and
approve a one-year extension. Second that?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would second that.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
Thank you.
MR. FITZGERALD: May I have the pictures, please?
TRUSTEE KING: Sure (handing.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: proper-T permit Services on behalf of
stephen Matteini requests a transfer of permit #5890 from
Helen w. Keith to Stephen Matteini, as issued on April
24, 2004. Located at 1060 willow Terrace Lane, orient.
This is the one where the structure is already
bui 1 t, ri ght?
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to approve that
transfer.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Approved, without discussion, I might
add.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of
Rosemary and sebastian Avolese requests the last one-year
extension to permit #5829, as issued on November 19,
Page 23
OCTMIN-Final
D
26
2003, and amended on September 22, 2004, and March 22,
2006. Located: 4150 Wunneweta Road, Cutchogue.
I don't think the board had any problem with this.
If anyone needs to make any comments, I don't have a file
in front of me, however --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have no file.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve this
request for a one-year extension. second?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go over to regular
hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Open the public hearings.
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have the first one. Again, we are
opening public hearings. This is where we'll take
comments. please keep your comments organized and brief,
to five minutes or less.
Number one, Julie MCGivney, on Behalf of Karnick and
Haci Garipian requests a wetland permit and coastal
erosion permit to replace, in-place, the existing
bulkhead or repair same, dismantle the dilapidated steps
to beach, cap off the unused clay drain hole leading to
the beach, remove existing portion of deck landing
seaward of the bulkhead and plant a 10-foot, non-turf
buffer east of deck along the top of the bulkhead, remove
existing enclosed porch and renovate and enlarge the
existing dwelling, install drywells and new sanitary
system, if required. Located: 54715 North Road, Southold.
MS. MCGIVNEY: Jill MCGivney, I represent Karnick and Haci
Garipian. The only thing I want to add to that is we are
also requesting a foundation permit, if required. It's
in the body of the application. It was just not on the
front of the public hearing. I just wanted to add that.
other than that, I'll let you ask me questions.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Before we get to that, the LWRP
coordinator found this inconsistent. The reason is it's
within 100 feet of the wetlands. And the CAC -- bear
with me for a minute -- the CAC resolved to support the
application with the condition of a ten-foot, non-turf
Page 24
OCTMIN-Final
o
27
buffer along the entire bluff.
NOW, we did go out and look at this and we had some
questions about it. But I'll shortcut that. I
understand there is an outstanding violation to this
property with a court date set of November 3.
MS. MCGIVNEY: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Our policy has been that we want all
outstanding violations to be taken care of first before
we go ahead and act on the permit requests. So what I
would like to do in order to save time here tonight is
table this until the court date comes around and there is
a decision made in court re~arding the violation and then
we can and back to the appllcation.
MS. MCGIVNEY: okay, I did speak with, already, I spoke
with the town attorney and we will hopefully resolving
this on the 3rd. So the only thing that I would just ask
if you can address tonight is the bulkhead issue of
in-place or inkind replacement before the next hearing.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We did look at the bulkhead. This is an
unusual bulkhead. It's not your traditional. It was
kind of done with railroad ties crossed back and forth to
each other. We would like to see it replaced in-place
and we are recommending instead of deadmen going back
into that bluff, because the bluff is so short, to use
helix screws that will act the same as and function the
same as deadmen back into the bluff. we are recommending
that. That saves you from havin~ to excavate that narrow
bluff dramatically, put deadmen In.
MS. MCGIVNEY: Because the dock builder had said he
thought the same thing and reading this, he said if we
could do an inkind replacement of only a ten inch
projection, the wall could be built up using that helix
screws you are talking about. so he wanted, you are
recommending in place but --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. Are you asking for a ten-inch
bump out?
MS. MCGIVNEY: Yes, as long as it's flush a~ainst the old
wall, because to do in-place replacement, lt would have
to be removed and the entire area would be --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And bulkhead, people in the business of
bulkheading do this. It's quite common to do inkind
replacement of bulkhead. So we felt they could do this
MS. MCGIVNEY: They could do inkind.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes.
o
28
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we'll felt you didn't have to take the
Page 25
OCTMIN- Fi na 1
deadmen out. That you could cut them off and leave them
in there. You won't have to rip everything out.
MS. MCGIVNEY: Leave them there and --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think we have a mutual goal of trying
not to disturb landward of the bulkhead, of the deadmen,
or whatever is in there.
MS. MCGIVNEY: okay, so I'll submit that additional
information before the next hearing and hopefully we'll
have that resolved.
MR. JOHNSTON: Can we take a five-minute recess?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay.
TRUSTEE KING: we just want to get something straight.
(After a five-mlnute recess, these
proceedings continue as follows.)
TRUSTEE KING: We are 90ing back on the record. we just
needed to clarify a llttle discrepancy.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay, back on the record again.
The only other question I had before I make a motion
to table this, is we did notice that the CCA lumber is
still out there. It looked like the applicant had
enclosed a little shed and stored it in there. We just
hope that none of that CCA lumber is going to be used on
this bulkheading or any structures there.
MS. MCGIVNEY: NO. After they invited you out, obviously
had no idea n
TRUSTEE BERGEN: we saw it there and just wanted to make a
note of it.
MS. MCGIVNEY: I'll absolutely tell him that. May I ask,
are we tabling it until this is resolved or can we put it
over to the next hearing?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I'm make a motion to do is to table
this application until the violation is revolved in
court, and then it will come back up at the next hearing
after that is revolved in court, yes.
MS. MCGIVNEY: Thank you, for your time. Good night.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: DO I have a second?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Twomey, Latham, Shea, Kelley on behalf
of Eve MacSweeney requests a wetland permit and coastal
erosion permit to revegetate the top of the bluff.
Located at 1250 Soundvlew Avenue, southold.
MS. DALLI: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. catherine
o
29
Dalli from Twomey, Latham & shea on behalf of the
applicant. I understand that the board wanted to see the
coastal erosion line on the survey so I have -- is that
the case?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. I think when the board looked at
page 26
OCTMIN-Final
this we wanted some we wanted an approved planting plan
for native planting in the original buffer.
Do we want to increase the existing buffer now that
we see the coastal erosion? This is four foot. The
original buffer was four foot wide. CAC supports the
application with the condition the bluff is revegetated,
installation of a ten-foot non-turf buffer and stair
construction plan stamped by an engineer.
we are just looking at tonight, Don, so you know, we
are looking at the revegetation of the bluff.
MR. WILDER: And ten foot buffer back from the bluff
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: At least.
MS. DALLI: I have a question as to why the other
application was postponed, because, the stairs --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It was. DO you want to address it?
Let's address this first. we'll take care of this
application first.
MS. DALLI: Sure.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: what does the board feel about the
buffer? Incorporate the four or go to two?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: what do you mean?
TRUSTEE KING: It should have at least ten foot added to
it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would be comfortable making it an even
15 feet. so we are adding ten foot, roughly, to it.
MS. DALLI: Adding ten feet to the plan?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The current four foot.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You have four foot. We would like to
make it 15.
MS. DALLI: Total of 15 feet.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And you want to have them bring in a
planting plan for native species that Heather would
approve, that you could bring in to Heather cusack in the
office.
MS. DALLI: Now, we have a plan for rosa rugosa, Montauk
daisies and American pennsylvania. IS there --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We would like to see a more extensive
planting plan. And if you want any recommendations of
o
30
species, native species, give Heather a call instead of
coming in and having to redo it.
MS. DALLI: okay.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So I will move to approve the request
for Wetland permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to
revegetate the top of the bluff with a 15-foot buffer
from the top of the bluff and on the condition that an
approved planting plan be brought in to our environmental
technician with native species.
Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
page 27
OCTMIN-Final
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
MS. DALLI: Thank you. Is it possible to address the
beach stairs?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we have that postponed.
MS. DALLI: I was not sure why.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: They requested a postponement.
TRUSTEE KING: There is a lot of questions on the house
and renovations.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There are questions on the house. It
has some problems with it, so we want to look into it and
do some research on it.
TRUSTEE KING: Looks like there has been some recent
renovations. It might have been done without the
necessary permits.
MS. DALLI: There was someone down on the premises. I
have a letter from an engineer. Because my office had
requested an updated CO of the property and we were told
by the Building Department that they don't issue them.
But to have engineer go out to the premises, inspect,
compare it with the property card on file and he did just
that and he wrote a letter saying that there were no
changes and he attached some photos. I could submit that
to the board if that would be of any help.
TRUSTEE OOHERTY: Sure. That's the kind of questions we
had and wanted to research and our office contacted your
office and it has agreed to postpone it. I believe.
SECRETARY STANDISH: They did.
MS. DALLI: I was told --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: well, we had questions that could not be
answered in this form and we might want to go in and
inspect it again.
MS. DALLI: okay, thank you. (Handing).
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of
o
31
Warren and Susan Cannon requests a wetland permit and
coastal erosion permit to restore --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You skipped number three.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sorry, pat. You're up.
patricia Moore, Esq., on behalf of Angelo and Josephine
padovan requests a wetland permit and coastal erosion
permit to repair the existing shed. Located: Soundview
Avenue, Southold.
MS. MOORE: Pat Moore. I promised Rob Herman this is not
going to be a marathon session. we have everything worked
out, I think.
I had given you, prior to the last time we were
here, it was not the last meeting, I gave you drawings
with the measurements, which I believe you confirmed all
the measurements to be accurate.
What we want to do is make repairs and replace the
page 28
OCTMIN-Final
old wood on this cabana or the storage building converted
to a cabana. It's going to continue to be a storage
building in the wintertime because, and I explained this
at the site inspection, my client puts wood shutters up
in the windows and encloses pretty much the whole thing
with plywood in order to protect all of the outdoor
furniture and everything else that he stores in there.
So that will continue to be the case in the wintertime.
you'll see him batten down the hatches and seal it up.
The cabana itself will have the light bulb, will
have light. It has the ability to have an outdoor
shower, I think we discussed. water would come from the
house as an exterior, as an out hose. NO heating, no
inside plumbing and no sanitary. If I'm correct -- I'm
basing my notes on the meeting.
We also talked about including amending the
application and including replacement of the stairs, the
access steps that goes from the road down to the
property. They are fine now but in short order they may
need to be replaced, so we might as well include that
into the inkind in-place, the stairs replacement.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: YOU don't have an approximate
measurement of those, do you?
MS. MOORE: I was looking at the survey. There is actually
a survey from the original application. Actually this
application as well, that the surveyor drew in, so we
could try to scale them or I could provide for you
measurements tomorrow or next couple of days.
o
32
It does show, it shows us, from my memory and also
from the survey, it's a platform at the top and then the
stairs go straight down. That's what is there. That's
what is showing on the survey as well.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, we would want measurements of that.
Should we have our office do it?
MS. MOORE: It's up to you. It doesn't matter. They are
there, so I could provide you a photograph and a
measurement. can do you measurements of the stairs that
are there; the wood stairs? we'll include it so you have
it. (client responds affirmatively.)
we can give you the measurement and you can confirm
them, send one person out to confirm them.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's fine. IS there any other comment
from the audience? (NO response.)
Any other comment from the board?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The only thing I want to make sure is
this is not going to be used for habitation purposes in
the future. I want that on the record.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We talked about this will not have any
habitation, and the electricity is to only come from the
Page 29
OCTMIN-Final
main house. This is not to have its own electricity now
or in the future. And we also talked about the runoff
from the main house, the drainage problem there and a
drywell that we discussed, that we have a drywell at the
bottom of the seaward side of the driveway?
MS. MOORE: It would actually be built into the sand.
That's the question. Right now, from my memory, they
actually, any beach, the grasses that were planted, were
planted by them. So it's actually there is grass there,
beach grass and sand. So if we were to put a drywell, it
would pretty much disturb the 9rass and --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know lf that's where we were
talking.
MS. MOORE: That's the low spot, so.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The base of the driveway in front of the
garage is where all the water goes down to.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The drywell in the driveway at the base
of the driveway in front of the garage. If you want to
come here.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: we can mark it on the plan.
MS. MOORE: I think I know where you are talking about.
The only problem is that could be very expensive to cut
into the driveway and cement, because that's blacktop and
D
33
that's cement.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Maybe you could put it --
MS. MOORE: And it was recently -- it was resurfaced.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: They could come in and cut a piece.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They can cut a piece out of the
driveway. That's a lot of volume of water that just
sheets right down there, and I know it's vegetated in
front and the sand and it's far from the water but still,
it's too much going down there.
MS. MOORE: All right, we'll come up with something.
Maybe he could talk to somebody, maybe a trench, like a
trench drain type of trench across the driveway.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: whatever kind of plan you want that will
work.
MS. MOORE: I'll let him talk to those that know. That's
fine.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think that's a great idea. Trench
drain cut through so you are only cutting through a small
section.
MS. MOORE: DO you understand what they are suggesting?
(Client responds affirmatively.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can do at the end of the real estate
there, a foot-wide trench, and then you can put the
drywell in the lawn.
MS. MOORE: I understand.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments? (NO response.)
page 30
OCTMIN-Final
It is exempt from LWRP and CAC. Their ori~inal approval
from May 10, 2006, they said they approve lt with the
condition of repair inkind in-place only, no treated
lumber, no plumbing, no inkind -- the inkind, in-place
limited to the existing footprint of the shed only and
does not include the deck.
We pretty much have the same. I'll make a motion to
close the public hearing.
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES.
I'll make a motion to approve the application of patricia
Moore on behalf Angelo and Josephine padovan for the
coastal Erosion permit and wetland Permit to repair the
existing shed with the conditions that it does not have
any plumbing, runnin~ water inside; the only electricity
comes from the existlng house next to it, and; this is
never to be inhabited. And I'll include the stairs that
are to the side of it to be replaced inkind, in-place,
D
34
measurements to be determined, and; also a drywell to be
placed to catch the runoff from the existing driveway.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES.
MS. MOORE: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Number four, En-consultants, Inc., on
behalf of warren and Susan Cannon requests a wetland
permit and coastal erosion permit to restore and
stabilize portion of the eroded bluff by grading and
translatin~ landward existing bluff crest to remove
vertical IIp; using approximately 25 cubic yards of
resultant material and approximately 390 cubic yards
clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source,
renourish bluff face; stabilizing fill with erosion
control matting; and planting bluff face with beach
grass, rose and bayberry. Located: 4625 Aldrich Lane
Extension, Laurel.
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, En-consultants, on behalf of
warren and Susan Cannon.
This is the last of a series of similar applications
we have had before this board with top down washouts that
are still really resulting from the flood rains we had
last October. It's similar to what we have proposed and
the board has approved previously on similar
applications, although the washout here is at least they
have the luxury of being a little more focused in
location.
we are planning to renourish the bluff face which
will be accomplished in part by peelin~ back some of that
vertical lift as the board typically wlshes to see and
using that natural material to fill the void along with
page 31
OCTMIN-Final
material to be trucked in.
That would then be stabilized with matting as the
board has requested in prior applications, and also
stabilized with vegetation as noted on our plan, and we
would propose to establish a ten-foot, non-turf buffer
landward of where the work is being done.
There is a variable width buffer that exists really
behind the crested bluff on the non-washed out portions
of the bluff already. If the board wants to formalize
that ten-foot strip along that entire bluff strip, we
could do that. we have not proposed planting in those
areas because some of those areas the plantation has
already well established and is not in need of any sort
o
35
of enhancement.
If the board has any questions I'm happy to answer
them.
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. I'm looking at the field
notes. we suggested 20-foot buffer along the whole edge
there, rather than ten-foot.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And to go along the whole part of the
property, not just the section --
MR. HERMAN: well, there is an area that is about five
feet wide already that is being translated back which is
one of the reasons we didn't go as far as back with it.
If you want to split the difference, based on that, and
maybe say is-feet along the entire crest, I think that
would be agreeable.
TRUSTEE KING: That sounds good to me.
MR. HERMAN: I know I discussed it with the owners and
they were concerned because, in other words, they were
volunteering to sort of lose another five feet to help
themselves, just to maybe reduce the intrusion as much as
possible, and of course they'll establish enough area --
TRUSTEE KING: I think 15 feet is reasonable.
MR. HERMAN: I have the complete revised plan.
TRUSTEE KING: CAC recommended approval. They don't have
recommendation for buffer size or anything. Just to
support it. I believe it's consistent with LWRP.
Are there any other comments in this application?
(NO response.)
Being no other comments, I'll make a motion to close
the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
I'll make a motion to approve the application with the
one change that there be a is-foot buffer along the
entire length of the buffer. The rest of it is fine.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
Page 32
OCTMIN-Final
MR. HERMAN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KING: Rob, do you want to send us a new drawing?
MR. HERMAN: Yes, I'll submit three copies.
TRUSTEE KING: Great, thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim, I wanted to just go back to when I
was doing Eve MacSweeney. We neglected to close the
hearing. I want to make a motion to close the hearing
for Eve MacSweeney.
D
36
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: Five has been postponed. we'll go into
wetland permits. One has been postponed.
COASTAL EROSION AND WETLAND PERMITS
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Under wetland permits, number two, Stepan
Minakyan requests a wetland permit to reconstruct the
beach access stairs. Located: 2375 Soundview Avenue,
Mattituck.
IS there anybody here to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. TANAL: Yes, sir. My name is vahan Tanal. I'm Mr.
Minakyan's son-in-law. He can't be here. He has some
high blood pressure problems, so I'm representing him.
I think the application is clear. I would be happy
to answer any questions you may have.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have a couple of questions for you
before we get to that. The CAC resolved to support the
application with the condition of a plan stamped by an
engineer. It was found inconsistent in the LWRP and part
of that is because the decks are larger than what we
allowed, and the setback of 100 feet from the water.
NOw, this is an application, excuse me, this is a
site that we went out and visited once before. we told
you our concerns regarding what you had constructed
there. YOU had stated that you were reconstructing beach
access stairs. It's our opinion that there were not
beach access theirs there. We also looked up aerial
photographs from 2001 to show no stairs there.
so we were concerned that you had started
constructing new stairs and that the stairs, as you
constructed them, were outside the parameters that we
approved. And we had asked you to please come back with
a new plan showing this modified in some way.
It doesn't look to me like you modified anything.
But please correct me if I'm wrong. You still have the
larger than we approved decks, or landings, sorry. They
are still, and correct me if I'm wrong, there still are
small bulkheads, retaining walls under the stairs that
page 33
OCTMIN-Final
were put in. There was still drainage issues
we didn't want to see that are still there.
Has any of this been amended to what we
that we said
talked about
D
37
before?
MR. TANAL: well, first of all, there are no retalnlng
walls. what there are is borders that provide benches
under the stairs. They are by no means retaining walls.
TRUSTEE KING: In my opinion they are retaining walls.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: In our opinion they are retaining walls.
MR. TANAL: well, I'm a civil engineer and I'm registered
in the State of New York as a professional engineer and I
can show you adjoining retaining walls, those are
retaining walls that our neighbors have. what we have is
a 4x8 board that is backed by two poles and we put some
gravel behind it so that it drains properly.
TRUSTEE KING: Was there any excavation done to install
those?
MR. TANAL: There was no excavation. We put in about six
cubic yards of gravel behind those boards so that the
water drains freely and it doesn't saturate the soil,
which is the cause of the constant erosion that we have
experienced over 30 years.
we have those stairs, as I mentioned before, over 30
years ago, we built those, every year we have to
reconstruct. In 1997, we obtained the permit to replace
them. we did not replace them properly. We gave up on
it. NOw, suddenly, my son is 20-years old, wanted to
have access to the beach, so we went back to the permit
and what we did is only one landing, based on your
comments, we took out the other two landings that was in
the permit. The permit said three landin9s. we only
have one landing. However, it's larger than what the
permit allowed. But overall, the structure is much less,
and I did the calculation, about 240 square feet less
than what the permit allowed. Because instead of
four-feet wide staircase, we built three-feet wide
staircase. And this is nothing but access to our own
beach. It's been there for over 30 years and I have
photographs and I showed you last time that my
father-in-law built himself with his own hands, 30 years
ago, and we replaced every year.
This is existing stairs that go down to the beach
and it's for our own use and it's very properly designed
and constructed to retain the stability of that bluff.
I'm a geo-technical engineer and I run the ports and
marine division of a very large consulting firm. The
coastal engineers work in my group and thlS is what we do
page 34
OCTMIN-Final
o
38
for our living. And we are committed to sustainable
design and to environmental protection. And this is a
very professionally done job. And I'm willing to stamp
with my own PE license and my own PE.
There is nothing better that we would like to
maintain the stability more than anybody else on earth.
This is our own property that we have been there over 30
years. I teach this thin~ in columbia university. I'm
adjunct professor. This 1S what I teach.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: we are not questioning your credentials.
MR. TANAL: I know. But you are saying it's a retaining
wall, and it's not. I know what a retaining wall is.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Regardless of what it is called, it was
a structure that was put down without permission. And
that's the issue.
MR. TANAL: I agree with that. I agree with that. The
issue in 1997, we have a permit that expired. We made a
mistake. I agree with that and I apologize for that.
But what we are building is very environmentally
sustainable and it protects the bluff. That's what I'm
saying. This is what our common goals are. Isn't that
our common goal?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: AS we spoke in the field, we said
was the structure, was too much, and we wanted you
make changes and submit those changes and we would
them. And you didn't make any of those changes.
MR. TANAL: What changes would you like me to make?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: First of all, the landings are too
large. The deck on the bottom
MR. TANAL: This is not --
TRUSTEE KING: Excuse me, sir.
into a debate.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm trying to answer your question. I
know you reduced the landing from the original permit but
the landing you have is still bigger than what we would
approve. The deck, if you will, on the beach side, right
on the bulkhead, we asked you to reduce that because we
didn't want that coverage. That coverage was too large.
I don't know what coverage that is, I don't have the file
in front of me. YOU didn't reduce those.
MR. TANAL: This is an amendment. It's on the backfill of
the bulkhead. It's not on natural ground.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I understand that. But this is what we
asked for
this
to
review
we don't want this to turn
page 35
OCTMIN-Final
o
39
MR. TANAL: we can reduce the size. we didn't build
anything there.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: well, we need to see revised plans
reducing and --
MR. TANAL: I have not heard you say we should reduce the
bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: when we met you in the field, we
discussed that.
MR. TANAL: We did, yes.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I said I didn't want to see it that
big. It covered too much.
MR. TANAL: But one of the members said they didn't have a
problem with it.
TRUSTEE KING: This was the approved plan from 1997, which
you evidently didn't build. Do you have a DEC violation
on this?
MR. TANAL: well, we got call from DEC to meet with them.
TRUSTEE KING: Do you have to go to a compliance hearing
on this?
MR. TANAL: I have to meet with them, yes.
TRUSTEE KING: so obviously there is a problem here.
MR. TANAL: well, they came and they ask me to meet with
them. That's correct.
MR. JOHNSTON: That's what I call a problem.
TRUSTEE KING: Did they issue you a violation; notice of
violation?
MR. TANAL: violation, yes.
MR. JOHNSTON: That's what you call a problem
MR. TANAL: problem, yes, I have a problem. Yes.
Correct.
TRUSTEE KING: We also have a problem in issuing something
that another agency is going to disallow.
MR. TANAL: well, I don't know if they would disallow or
not because I'm willing to explain what we are doing and
how this is in compliance with the '97 permit.
TRUSTEE KING: I think we should table this until this is
straightened out a little bit, or if he wants to submit a
set of plans, to what we want -- okay, I'll go with
that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: IS there anybody else who would like to
speak on behalf of this application? (NO response.)
Not seeing anybody rushing to the microphone.
MR. TANAL: well, my wife would like to speak. Does that
count?
page 36
OCTMIN-Final
D
40
TRUSTEE BERGEN: NO. Then I'll make a motion to close this
public hearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES.
MR. TANAL: what am I supposed to do?
MR. JOHNSTON: Sit down.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are not done. I would like to make a
motion to deny this Wetland Permit without prejudice.
DO I hear a second?
TRUSTEE KING: second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: opposed? (None).
TRUSTEE KING: Thank you.
MR. TANAL: IS there a recourse to this?
TRUSTEE KING: You can resubmit a new application.
MR. TANAL: You tell me what I should resubmit. what
would be acceptable to the board?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would suggest you call the office and
one of the trustees will get in touch with you to go over
once a~ain what we talked about tonight and what talked
about ln the field so as not to take up additional time
from everybody else that is here tonight.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Eugene and Maryann Krupski request a
Wetland permit to clean up and restore the existing pond
to include the removal of lilies one tree, brush and
poison ivy, and relocate the driveway. Located: 2230
Soundview Avenue, southold.
would anyone like to speak to this application?
MR. KRUPSKI: I would like to address the board.
Eugene Krupski. Members of the board, first of all,
there is an error. It should be Mattituck, not
Southold.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: you're right.
TRUSTEE KING: we went to Mattituck, though.
MR. KRUPSKI: what we want to do is basically restore the
pond to what it used to be. My dad used to have fish in
the pond. It used to be clear all around it. I used to
ice skate on the pond. Um, right now it's been overgrown
and everything and I cleared out a lot of the weeds and
everything. There used to be trees growing around it. A
lot of trees have already fallen down into the pond.
It's overgrown with lilies or lotuses it's basically
choking out what water is already there and what I want
to try to do is clean the pond, restore it, put the water
D
41
back in
be able
So
and able to restock it
to use it, and myself.
it's just basically, I
page 37
with fish and my children
want to clean up it up and
OCTMIN-Final
restore it to what it used to be.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. Anyone else here who would
like to speak?
MR. GORDON: Harold Gordon. My property also goes into the
pond. Are we just going to talk about the lotus now,
cleaning up the pond and then the driveway afterwards?
It's also for the driveway?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's also part of the same.
MR. KRUPSKI: We also want to move the driveway closer,
because we have 100 feet now.
TRUSTEE KING: we can address both issues.
MR. GORDON: I understand that you are supposed to be 100
feet from a wetland. And--
TRUSTEE KING: Excuse me. On driveways?
MR. GORDON: I don't know about the driveway. well, I
thought for construction.
TRUSTEE KING: I believe, I think in the code it's within
50 feet. I think 50 feet is the minimum for driveway.
we can look it up.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: our jurisdiction is within 100 feet.
But we can approve something to be within that hundred
feet. It doesn't mean you can't do anything, it just
means you have to apply to us.
MR. GORDON: well, I want to say something about the pond,
that it is a live pond. I believe it's fed primarily
from runoff and because I know, I have been there over 20
years, and at one point I could walk across the pond
because it was dry during the drought period.
There is water in the pond right now. It's filled
to the top, and there are fish in the pond. There are
turtles in the pond. There are frogs in the pond. There
are birds in the pond. It is a very live and healthy
pond. I believe there is duckry in the pond.
so I'm concerned about the driveway being so close
to the pond, especially for gas and oil dripp,ngs from
vehicles going up and down the driveway so close to the
house, you know, not only their own cars which are
probably maintained very well but delivery trucks and oil
trucks and other trucks going up to their house.
And also in the winter ,f he has to salt the
driveway to melt the ice, I would I believe it would
o
42
probably leach into the pond. Also if he has to regrade
the land to make it higher, it may, the way the land
goes, it slopes that way, so when the pond does get
filled up with runoff water, the water goes back, that
way, I don't know if you are aware of it. But your road,
if it's 50 feet, will probably get flooded all the time.
So he may have to regrade it, which will force the water
back that way. And I know that when the pond, the water
page 38
OCTMIN-Final
in the pond gets to a certain level I get, the water
table rises and I get water in my cellar now. So it may
be even worse if more water is forced into the pond.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So your concern is the driveway and
the pond? or mostly the runoff?
MR. GORDON: Both. And my notes to you that you have up
there.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right.
MR. GORDON: As far as getting rid of the lotus, I don't
know how you would get rid of them short of herbicide,
and if you do herbicide it will destroy everything in
that pond.
so, as far as I'm concerned he could dig them out,
have them dug out or cut down on his side. They are very
beautiful and sort of awesome. They do grew out of the
water. They don't lay on top of the water. That's why
lotus is regarding as purity because it's untouched by
the water. And I think the pond has a clay lining,
that's what the previous owner told us, and if you have
to get a bulldozer in there or something it may disturb
that lining, I don't know. so I was concerned about that
and whatever else I said there. I guess that's it.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you.
MS. KRUPSKI: I'm Maryann Krupski. I had someone coming
from the water yesterday and they told me as long as
there is 50 feet of buffer of grass you could put
anything around it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Address the board, please. Thank you.
MS. KRUPSKI: You need to be 50 feet. This is what they
gave me. (Handing.)
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: could we have a copy for the file?
MS. KRUPSKI: Yes. There two pages, but the 50 feet is
what I was talking about. I'm not good speaking in front
of that microphone. I feel comfortable up here.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: we have some concerns ourselves. Are
you finished with your comments?
D
43
MS. KRUPSKI: okay. so your concerns.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you have more to add to your
letter?
MR. GORDON: It's not like it's the only place to put
their driveway. They have hundreds of feet.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: okay, the concerns we have. we have a
couple. First of all, the LWRP is -- Mark Terry, our
LWRP coordinator, states that there is insufficient
information to make a consistency determination and I
believe he's looking for further information. And we
also, you were given a violation?
MS. KRUPSKI: Yes.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: okay, we as a board don't address
page 39
OCTMIN-Final
applications when there is an outstanding violation,
however, I do see your court date was october 13
MS. KRUPSKI: Right. we extended it today. That's what
we were recommended to do. We were recommended
MR. KRUPSKI: I had to extend it. My mom passed away
about a week ago. I was unable to attend.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's fine
MS. KRUPSKI: That's the reason.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's just that if you had already been
there and there was a resolution to that, we might be
able to address it tonight. But because it has not been
addressed and because we have an incomplete report from
LWRP, this will have to be tabled tonight.
DO you have a question?
TRUSTEE KING: NO. The one question about the property.
Is the property actually owned by two different people?
MS. KRUPSKI: Three, I believe.
MR. KRUPSKI: The majority of the pond --
MR. GORDON: How do you draw a line through the water?
TRUSTEE KING: We've done it.
MR. GORDON: HOw?
TRUSTEE KING: Going back in history, we had disputes over
a pond. Two people claimed ownership. They built a berm
right through the middle of the pond and separated it
MR. KRUPSKI: Actually my grandfather du~ that pond out,
probably a good hundred years ago, and lt is owned a
little bit by yourself.
MR. GORDON: I own 30, 40 feet.
MR. KRUPSKI: And Roger Robinson owns a small piece and
the majority is owned by me.
I just also want to address the 50 feet issue of the
D
44
pond. we had it set for 100 feet. 50 feet, I think, is
more than sufficient. It is still a large distance away
from the pond. So I don't think anything would affect
it. And also I want to address the lotus situation.
Right now, like I said, the water is being choked out of
the pond, um, it has overtaken, they were planted there
so it's not a natural plant that has grown in the pond.
Somebody has brought it there and planted it there and it
has overtaken the pond. I think if anything it's killing
the fish.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: DO you understand we have those two
issues that have to be taken care of before we can
address this? So this will be tabled tonight and
addressed in November. It will come back up on our
agenda in November.
MR. KRUPSKI: So there is nothing I could do regarding my
driveway? I'm in the process of buildin~ my house.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Not until the violation lS resolved.
page 40
OCTMIN-Final
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The court case has to be resolved before
we act on this.
MS. KRUPSKI: The court date has to be in December. we
still can't put a driveway to get to our house?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Not within the hundred feet.
MS. KRUPSKI: How are we supposed to get to our house?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Isn't there a driveway in your original
plans?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY:
MS. KRUPSKI: NO.
they are ruining
farmland.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think what we need to do is see a
survey. Because I was under the impression that your
land went all the way over and there was a driveway
existing already.
MR. KRUPSKI: There is no driveway.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because the survey is not clear and I
would personally like the see the survey of the pond,
too, how much of the pond you own, because we can't give
you permission to clear part of the pond that is not
yours. It has to be -- can we separate the driveway from
the pond? IS the violation for clearing?
MR. KRUPSKI: The violation for clearing.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: For clearing around the pond.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If they separated it and came in with
Isn't there a driveway now?
Everyone is driving over our
the farmland and putting ruts
~rass and
1nto the
o
45
an application in November for a driveway, you might be
able to get your driveway before we clear up the other
issues.
MS. KRUPSKI: Also we have a tree that has fallen into the
pond.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: well, we are looking at the emergency
here as part of your driveway.
The application is for clearing the pond and
driveway. They say they have no way to get to the house
they are building and the court date is not until
December. Could they come in and apply for a driveway
application that we would address in November to get them
the driveway?
TRUSTEE KING: There is some sort of driveway there now.
MS. KRUPSKI: There isn't. There is no driveway. we are
just -- everyone --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There was of a driveway
MS. KRUPSKI: It's not really a driveway.
not really a driveway. It's a dirt road
making.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Over here.
MS. KRUPSKI: That was there before.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: IS the dirt road we saw on your
page 41
alon~ here.
It 1S, but it's
that everyone is
OCTMIN-Final
property?
MS. KRUPSKI: Yes
TRUSTEE KING: IS it on the survey?
MS. KRUPSKI: Yes. Not as a dirt road, no.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They are saying they want to stop using
this and start this driveway.
MS. KRUPSKI: Because they are ruining the grass.
MR. KRUPSKI: They are going through the field now.
TRUSTEE KING: I didn't know if the existing driveway you
have going up there now is something you had to put in
because of the subdivision or plann1ng Board made you put
it there.
MS. KRUPSKI: No. The people that are building the house
are making it themselves.
MR. KRUPSKI: They are making us to go back to them until
we get approval.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: so they would have to --
SECRETARY STANDISH: There is the original permit from
this board for the driveway. There 1S hay bales that
belong to the driveway in the file.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: DO you remember where the original
o
46
driveway was?
MR. KRUPSKI: It was 100
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's
MS. KRUPSKI: But we are
driveways.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: so you have a wetland permit 2005 to
install permit driveway, survey done by John Metzger.
Last dated July 23, 2005.
TRUSTEE KING: So they want to amend that permit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So you do have a driveway.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't see why not.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you can submit a driveway for next
month and get your, for your driveway only, amendment to
that permit.
TRUSTEE KING: what do you want do is come in and amend
that permit for the driveway, the hundred feet, you want
to amend that and change that dimension to 50 feet on
that permit
MS. KRUPSKI: we can't do it until November?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: NO, because you have to apply for it
MS. KRUPSKI: we have to apply for another permit.
TRUSTEE KING: You have the permit on the driveway. It's
100 feet.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: For an amendment, you don't have to
notify the neighbors and all that.
MR. KRUPSKI: So you just come in here --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Lauren can tell you what you need to do.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's a less painful process and you
Page 42
feet away.
consistent.
going to do
I saw that.
it twice, make two
OCTMIN-Final
can get your driveway. Then we can address the pond
issues after your court date and after --
MS. KRUPSKI: we want to get the septic put in there and
he's goin~ to, because when he brings the machinery he
can't do 1t twice.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our next meeting is set for November
15. That's the earliest we have.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So you have to find out from Lauren
when you have to have the application.
MS. KRUPSKI: what happens if we need to have it before
then for the septic. It sounds ridiculous just to bring
the bulldozers --
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we have to go through our process and if
you choose to do it without the amendment you'll get
another violation
MS. KRUPSKI: NO, no.
D
47
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: we are trying to help out by give you
the driveway you need more than cleaning the lotus leaves
MS. KRUPSKI: No, I'm not worried about that.
TRUSTEE KING: we are totally consistent with the
violation issue. NOW we are moving forward with the
violation pending
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's why I asked. That's what my
question was. Because they are sayin~ they need this
driveway and they are taking part of 1t but you are
holding --
TRUSTEE BERGEN: what I'm hearin~ is there was a driveway
approved originally. So there 1S a driveway. I'm
hearing the applicant say there is no driveway. But
there was an approved driveway. so there is a driveway
that was approved. YOU want to change that to another
location.
MR. KRUPSKI: we want to change is and move it closer than
100 feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. what I heard you say the
hardship was that you have no driveway. But there is in
fact a driveway that was approved. There is a driveway.
YOU just would prefer the driveway be in a different
spot, correct?
MR. KRUPSKI: Yes. The driveway is not there yet,
technically.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: But it was approved to go in.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I don't see it to be an emer~ency
because they have approval of access already. L1ke Dave
just said.
MS. KRUPSKI: But we are really not using the access.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we gave you approval of access and if
you want to make an amendment you can apply for an
amendment of that driveway. But we can't act on anything
page 43
OCTMIN-Final
until the violation is cleared up. And we can't act on
anything tonight.
MS. KRUPSKI: But the violation is not going to be done
unti 1 December.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have no control of that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: we did not commit the violation.
MS. KRUPSKI: we have no control over our property. we
have no rights on our property.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to table. Is there
a second?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
o
48
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
Boulevard planning on behalf of Robert and Susan
Somerville requests a wetland permit to construct a
second-story addition to the rear of dwelling and deck at
rear of dwelling. Located: 595 oakland Court, southold.
Is it oakland?
MR. LEHNERT: Oakwood Drive. 595 oakwood Drive.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. 595 Oakwood Drive, in Southold. The
whole board looked at this. We had no problem with the
addition itself. we just had a couple of questions. We
would like to see a ten-foot non-turf buffer landward of
the revegetation and also, they have a wired fence. we
would like to see that removed. That's not permitted
under our wetland code.
MR. LEHNERT: So remove the wire fence.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And for clarity, it's the wire fence
that's along the waterfront. There were several wire
fences there
MR. LEHNERT: That's what I figured. Alo~g ~he water.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And peggy was just mentlonlng the
jet-ski float that we see there. The board is going to
be reviewing that type of structure and make a
determination if that is allowed.
so at this point we are not going to, we have not
made a determination on that because there are floats
like that in other places.
The CAC supports this application with the condition
that a 20-foot non-turf buffer, impervious deck and the
deck is not 100 feet of wetlands.
MR. LEHNERT: 20 feet or ten?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is CAC comments. And the LWRP
found it to be inconsistent for the reason of the
100-foot setback. It says plan didn't show topography or
drywells to control surface runoff.
IS there any other comment for or against this
application? (No response.)
Any comment from the board?
page 44
OCTMIN-Final
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would recommend that we make sure --
TRUSTEE KING: why was it inconsistent with LWRP?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because of the hundred feet and because
no topo.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: May I just recommend the installation of
gutters, downspouts and drywells to mitigate the
D
49
inconsistency with LWRP?
MR. LEHNERT: Yes, we'll show it on the plan.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments? (NO response.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the
application of Boulevard planning on behalf of Robert and
Susan Somerville for a Wetland permit to construct second
story addition to rear of dwelling with a condition of
ten-foot, non-turf buffer from the waters edge --
ten-foot, non-turf buffer landward of the vegetation and
the wire fence that is along the water to be removed and
leaders and gutters into drywells.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: Number five. samuels & steelman Architects
on behalf of Doug Dey requests a wetland permit to
connect the existing beach house with new residence with
new undergound tunnel. Located: 1775 paradise Point Road,
Southold.
Anyone here to speak to behalf of this application?
MR. SAMUELS: My name is Tom samuels. Really I'm here to
answer questions, but I can add that in some ways it's a
minor thing. It's a little odd, I admit.
The owner is simply interested in accessing beach
level from his basement. It is behind the pre-existing
structure. From a zoning standpoint, it's relatively
simple. From your standpoint, it mayor may not be. We
are trying to preserve the existing structure pretty much
in tact although we will probably reshape it a little it.
otherwise, leave it largely intact. There is a little
plumbing in it now. we are not married to that but I
mean effectively that structure is there and we are
simply trying to connect underground. He's building a
brand new house, as you know saw when you visited; very
significant house.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you know what that plumbing is
connected to? Does it go to the beach or are there
actually drywells there?
MR. SAMUELS: I'm not sure. It's a shower, so it's not
sanitary in the sense of toilets.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I understand that.
page 45
OCTMIN-Final
TRUSTEE KING: There is an orange and gray pipe going out,
D
50
I don't know where they are going.
MR. SAMUELS: It probably goes -- I can't tell that
either, I'm afraid. It's probably a drywell. At the
most. Like I said, they are not interested in the
showers. The showers are not of interest to them. They
are building a pool on the other side of the house with a
pool house. He doesn't care about the showers.
TRUSTEE KING: Like I said it just --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Does the tunnel go level?
MR. SAMUELS: It's level. It's effectively level. It may
be about a foot difference, but effectively level.
TRUSTEE KING: CAC didn't make an inspection. It was
found inconsistent with the LWRP.
MR. SAMUELS: Doesn't somehow surprise me.
TRUSTEE KING: If it's underground, I don't understand
what possible impact it could have on anything. proposed
distance of underground tunnel is 100 feet. The
applicant has not proved the underground tunnel was
designed to avoid damage from flooding and erosion.
MR. SAMUELS: well, I mean, there are, I think there are
some, there is some hardening on the shoreline. We are
above that. Flooding would have to, the floor elevation
is above eight feet. You would need some significant
flooding above flood plane elevation.
TRUSTEE KING: My feeling is if it's underground it has
absolutely no impact to the environment.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's a new house being constructed
around it already.
TRUSTEE KING: The house is there. It's an underground
tunnel. Basement level.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's being connected to an existing
structure, so I would agree.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: IS there a need for -- that's why I
asked if it was goin~ on an angle.
TRUSTEE KING: NO, it s goin~ straight into the building.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And there lS a buffer between it.
TRUSTEE KING: I don't see how it has any impact. There
will be a door at the entrance of this tunnel, correct
MR. SAMUELS: Yes.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That will in essence prevent any water in
a natural flood from coming into the tunnel.
MR. SAMUELS: It would need to be a heck of a flood.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand that. I'm trying to address
the inconsistency due to concern about flooding with a
Page 46
OCTMIN-Final
D
51
door of sufficient size and quality to prevent that from
happening, that would address this particular
inconsistency.
MR. SAMUELS: Right. And that door, from a security
standpoint, that has to be a lockable door anyway because
he didn't want his basement invaded from the beach. we
haven't specified a door. It will be potentially a metal
door, I'm sure.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I would recommend.
TRUSTEE KING: The primary reason it's within 100 feet.
please require the applicant amend the application to
meet the above policy. Put a tunnel out on the road,
maybe. LWRP, come on.
I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor. ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: Motion to approve the application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
MR. SAMUELS: Thank you, have a nice evening.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number seven. JMO Environmental
Consulting on behalf of Michael and Beth Neumann requests
a wetland permit to demolish the existing single-family
dwelling, porch, garage and outhouse, to pump out and
remove existing sanitary system. Construct a new
sin~le-family dwelling, sanitary system, porches, decks,
patlos, pool, detached garage and driveway. Located: 3329
Grand Avenue, Mattituck.
IS there anybody here to speak either for or against
this application?
MR. JUST: Good evening Glenn Just, JMO Consultants. we
also have the architect and the contractor here. Mrs.
Neumann could not be here, she is under doctor's care.
Hopefully we'll be able LO answer any quesLions you
have.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: LWRP found this inconsistent because of
the setback of 100 feet is not met. I do not see a
recommendation from the CAC in here.
Was there a recommendation on this, Don?
MR. WILDER: NO, there was not.
TRUSTEE KING: There is a letter from the neighbor, I
think.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: IS there a letter from the neighbor which
page 47
OCTMIN-Final
o
52
is short, so I'll read it. This is from Martin Krauss
Trust. Our only concern is the setback of the proposed
pool. It appears to be very close to our boundary. we
realize this would not be governed by the environmental
review but we want to go on record as to our concern.
Now, the board went out and looked at this and
already there has been some mitigation done with hay
bales and silt screen, which was good, to help with the
runoff. obviously we are concerned about that, to make
sure that is addressed in the construction.
The inconsistency based on the 100-foot setback, we
were curious or we were wondering if there was any
opportunity to set this residence back a little further
than what it is.
Right now, the corner of the porch is 60 feet from
the deslgnated wetlands on this survey; september 20,
looks like, revised survey. It was turned into our
office september 25. We were just curious if there was
any opportunity to move the structure back a little more
to address the inconsistency from the LWRP.
TRUSTEE KING: This is where things were. (Indicating.) If
we could just slide that back, maybe if it was tilted to
get further away from the property line, I don't know.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And, again, the suggestion is, just to
repeat what was just stated, is there an opportunity to
set this structure back a little bit more to address the
LWRP inconsistency and/or maybe address the problem the
neighbor had with the pool. I'm only asking the
applicant this.
MR. JUST: This is Fred webber, the architect. Starting
with the pool, Fred?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Step back to the microphone, please.
Thank you.
MR. WEBBER: Hi, my name is Fred webber, I'm the architect
for the project. Just as a convenience, I had colored a
site plan in so you could see where the existing house
was and where the proposed house is. That's what I was
just trying to put in front of you.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's exactly as designated on the plans
we have.
MR. WEBBER: AS you are looking at it, the red and the
orange is the existing. The red being the house, the
orange being the porch. And then the green being, the
dark green being the body of the house and the llght
o
53
page 48
OCTMIN-Final
green being the porch and the terrace.
So in effect, the body of the house is actually just
about in line with the body of the existing back of the
house. I guess it's the porch and terrace, I guess, that
are the only things that are not in back of the existing
house.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Here are some of my fellow trustees
offering suggestions, if you would like to do so.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: we are looking at moving it back. My
concern is the elevation and your building envelope which
to get to that elevation you'll have a tremendous amount
of erosion there. My concern would be moving both
structures back as far as possible on that property. I
think the recommendation of the board is to move it back
ten feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: we had discussed the other day the
opportunity to move the proposed structure back, or
landward ten additional feet. The pool is presently 60
feet off the wetlands and our recommendations are 50. So
it meets our recommendations. Again, we are just
addressing what the neighbor had talked about with the
pool to see if there is any opportunity to change the
location of that pool or amend it one way or another, or
even angling it, possibly. If you step up for a moment, I
could show you.
MR. WEBBER: I think they are open to move the pool back,
angling it.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you angle, if it was angled like that,
so to speak, this corner moves away from the neighbor's
property slightly. It doesn't change the distance from
the water at all and doesn't change --
MR. WEBBER: That's not a problem at all.
MR. JUST: We also thought putting the backwash filter a
minimum of 100 feet back from the wetlands, that would
help mitigate it, too. Because that's with the algaecides
and all other chemicals.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And then what about the opportunity to
move the structure back ten feet? That's what I seem to
be hearing from the board here. Again, to address the
LWRP inconsistency, to bring it into consistency.
MR. JUST: The proposed house is going to be completely
landward of the existing house. That's one thing that
seems to be a little confusing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The house. Not the porch.
D
54
MR. JUST: we are just talking about the dwelling, that's
all.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Then is there an opportunity, possibly,
to decrease the size of the terrace, to bring that back
so that in essence we move the project back ten feet?
page 49
OCTMIN-Final
MR. WEBBER: I think we could do that.
TRUSTEE KING: I think moving everything behind the
original house, I believe, lS enough for us to deem it
being consistent.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are you talking about -- what you are
talking about is to either remove the entire structure or
remove the porch and terrace completely. And I don't
think that's what the applicants are saying.
MR. JUST: I think moving the porch and terrace would be
at least landward of the existing structure.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's fine. If that's what you are
willing to do.
MR. JUST: I think that's what it shows on the plan,
doesn't it?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: NO.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: why don't we
that back so it's in front of
cut back? we want ten feet.
five feet?
MR. WEBBER: That's good
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm just thinking out loud. IS that
okay with everyone?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would be willing to compromise if it
helps address the inconsistency issue. The corner of the
proposed porch is 60. It would bring back to 65.
MR. BURGER: we are looking to have a basement window
there to look out toward the water.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: You would still be able to do that.
MR. BURGER: It would. Five feet would definitely work
without a problem.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: They could either move the whole
MR. WEBBER: They could move the whole house back five
feet.
MR. BURGER: The whole house.
MR. WEBBER: Everything back five feet.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Everything within the green footprint.
MR. WEBBER: Correct.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's hard to tell. It would bring it
back. It would be very close. It's 65 feet.
go for a compromise and cut
the existing house but it's
why don't we compromise
o
55
MR. JUST: well, the proposed terrace and stuff now at the
closest part is 70 feet. If you look at this. I scaled
it off this way.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have here
MR. JUST: what I have done is include the proposed
terrace.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are you saying the distance to there is
70 feet?
MR. JUST: From the wetland. If we move it back, it's 75
feet for the terrace and the porch; 85 for that porch and
page 50
OCTMIN-Final
it would, you know, more than address the 75 foot
setback.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm comfortable with that.
MR. JUST: And also for mitigation remove and abandon the
existing septic system which is right on top of the
wetlands. And the new septic system, probably 150 feet
back.
MR. WEBBER: I think it's 130 feet back.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay.
TRUSTEE KING: And the drywell is out of our jurisdiction,
too, if you put it that far back.
MR. JUST: Correct. And I think Mr. webber's plans
include leaders and gutters for the drywell, as the
trustees normally require.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other comments that anybody
has? (NO response.)
If not, I'll make a motion to close this public
hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would like to --
TRUSTEE KING: Just one comment. The previous owner on
this did some clearing, had a violation. They paid a
fine to DEC, they paid a fine to the town. AS far as I
know, everything has been resolved. Mr. Burger put a
line of hay bales in there, thankfully before the eight
inches of rain we had. Just to get it on the record that
all those problems were revolved.
MR. JUST: It really helped. The soil came up half the
height of the hay bales.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: will there be replanting done there
after the clearing?
MR. JUST: I think we'll look at it passively first to see
what nature brings back.
o
56
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There is a plan to let it grow back?
MR. JUST: There is definitely a plan to let it grow
back.
TRUSTEE KING: We'll have a 50-foot buffer, anyway, from
the wetlands. 50-foot, non-disturbed buffer.
MR. JOHNSTON: Jim, was Mr. Burger reimbursed for the hay
bales, as you had suggested?
TRUSTEE KING: I don't know.
MR. BURGER: It's in the process.
TRUSTEE KING: Is that a yes?
MR. BURGER: I haven't seen it. I was told the check is in
the mail.
MS. MOORE: For the record, I represent the parties. we
have been waiting for, I think, this permit to be
resolved and we already agreed to it but we have to get
page 51
OCTMIN-Final
everybody to sign off on it first. I'm waiting for the
Neumann's to sign off on that.
MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Burger, is it less than $2,000 for the
hay bales?
MR. BURGER: Yes, it was $1,500, and depending on the
outcome of tonight's hearing it was going to be released
tomorrow.
MR. JOHNSTON: So you are charging $1,500 for hay bales
and $500 for aggravation?
MS. MOORE: No, no. $1,500
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could bring this back, folks. I
believe we had a motion to close the public hearing and a
second. All in favor? ALL AYES.
I would like to make a motion to approve JMO
Environmental consultin9 on behalf of Michael and Beth
Neumann with the follow1n9 stipulations:
one, that we would llke to move the house back
approximately, house and terrace and proposed porch back
approximately five feet. In doing so we would deem this
action to be consistent with LWRP; the inclusion of a
50-foot, non-turf buffer, non-disturbance area down from
the water front landward and the opportunity to move the
pool so that the pool runs parallel to the property line,
so it will come now at an angle. And please remember to
include gutters and drywells on the residence and, again,
maintain the hay bales line and silt line during
construction.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Before that is seconded, go over the
50-foot buffer.
o
57
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Non-disturbance -- sorry. Yes.
Non-disturbance buffer. That's my fault. Thank you for
catching that.
DO I have a second to that motion?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: Before you go, did you need anything from
DEC?
MR. JUST: They'll be grantin9 an NJ. We are just about --
as everyone knows, southold 1S a little backed up in DEC
staff, but it's in for typing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: John Bertani Builder, Inc., on behalf
of Linda Sanford requests a wetland permit for the
existin9 new construction of a single-family dwelling,
renovat10n of the existing garage, new in-ground swimming
pool, patios and new landscape plan. Located: 780 private
Road, #17, southold.
would anyone like to speak to this application?
MR. BERTANI: John Bertani, here to answer any questions
the board may have and also to introduce Mr. Keith
Page 52
OCTMIN-Final
simpson, landscape architect, if have you any questions.
MR. SIMPSON: My name is Keith simpson, I'm the landscape
architect. YOU have the planting plan, site plan showing
the proposed pool and work around the property. I'm
prepared to answer any questions or explain anything, if
the board would like.
I do have a drawing which shows a lOa-foot setback
from the top of the bluff if that is in any way extra
help to you.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: we talked about moving pool back. IS
that what this is?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: we are checking to see that you narrowed
the steps that we had met talked about. There were steps
goin~ out close to the bluff. you'll be removing those
footlngs and moving those steps back.
MR. SIMPSON: Yes, I think I know which one those were
for.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: IS the planting plan separate
MR. SIMPSON: The planting plan is separate. It's in the
back. It's number p-1. It's a planting plan of the
whole property. Once again, I put a line on that which
shows the 100 foot --
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: May I ask you, before I read through
all these Latin words that I'm not familiar with, are
o
58
these basically native plantings or are they landscape
pl anti ngs?
MR. SIMPSON: They are a combination. There is bayberry,
there's beach plum, there's salt tolerant plants and we
done a lot of work on the shore over the years, about 25
years, actually. And so the plants are very carefully
selected for the coastal zone.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That was one of our concerns, that it
would not be as much landscaped with oriental, that it
would be more native; that you use a mix.
MR. SIMPSON: I do use a mix but I try very hard not to
use the invasive species.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No purple loose stripe
MR. SIMPSON: NO, and no bittersweet either. I try very
hard to not have the ones which absolutely become
impossible to control or like the Japanese vines and
that, honeysuckles and those are not there at all.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any board comments? (No response.)
Any comments from the audience? (No response.)
we have an inconsistency review from the LWRP: close
distance to the swimming pool and related structures;
pool decking located within lOa-foot setback of the top
of the bluff; minimum setback of 100. LWRP also requires
the use of native and drought tolerant vegetation
landscaping to minimize irrigation and fertilization.
page 53
OCTMIN-Final
DO we have a buffer, Don, on the bluff? or there is
not even any -- (perusing.) This is not much of a bluff.
CAC supports the application with condition there is no
lawn on the seaward side. I don't think I see a lawn.
MR. SIMPSON: There won't be any lawn on the seaward side
of the bluff.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The lawn is just within that
crescent.
MR. SIMPSON: That's right. There won't be lawn on the
seaward side of the bluff. In fact, even that area is
not seaward side of the bluff, of the top of the bluff.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: NO removal of trees over eight
inches. These are recommendations from the conservation
Advisory Council. All decks on seaward side of the house
are pervious and the area on the seaward side of the
house is sloped away from the water
MR. SIMPSON: Right, it will. once it gets
berm, the entire project slopes backwards.
drained. So we are not anticipating storm
to the top the
So it's back
drainage
D
59
running over the top. Because one of the reasons doing
the planting is the bank is really not in as good a shape
now as we would like it to be.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And you addressed our request to move
the pool back, and you addressed our request to keep the
stairs close to the house at the point we requested?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was more like a patio, and we asked
you to cut it back and now it's just the stairs coming
off the existing patio on the seaward side.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Right. They corrected that.
MR. SIMPSON: we addressed, got the corrections and
addressed that properly.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: with all of our requests to you, I
approve this application -- I have another comment. Were
they paying as advised, Lauren?
SECRETARY STANDISH: Yes, they did.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: With the pool being moving back, with
the planting plan showing a nice balance of native
species and the stairs that we asked to be moved closer
to the house, the Board of Trustees deems this action to
be consistent with the Local Waterfront Revitalization
Program. And I just want to make sure there is no one
else here that would like to speak to this.
(NO response.) If there are no comments from the board,
I'll close the public hearing. (NO response.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
I will make a motion to approve the application for
Linda sanford for the existing new construction of a
single-family dwelling, renovation of the existing
page 54
OCTMIN-Final
garage, new in-ground swimming pool, patios and new
landscaping plan, as per the request of the trustees been
approved wlth native species and stairs that have been
reduced to make this consistent.
00 I have a second?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES.
MR. BERTANI: Thank you, very much. I appreciate it.
what is the setback of the pool?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's at 50, I believe
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It looked more than 50
MR. SIMPSON: It's 50 feet now. I understood
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: 50 feet from hay bales. Move the pool
50 feet from hay bales
o
60
MR. BERTANI: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Suffolk Environment Consulting, Inc., on
behalf of vincent and Eileen Flaherty request a wetland
permit to replace the existing wood decking off the
eastern side of the existing dwelling and southwestern
section of the existing garage with a stone paver patio;
replace the existing wood decking surrounding the
existing swimming pool with a stone paver patio; and
construct a retalning wall/pool fence around the
perimeter. Located at 1775 Inlet Way, Southold.
IS there anyone here to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. ANDERSON: Suffolk Environmental Consulting for
applicant Flaherty.
I draw your attention to a site map that we sent to
you on the 27th which I think says it all. Essentially
what we have is wood patio that surrounds a pool that is
located 45 feet from the water which in this case is
wetland boundary and that patio will be reconfigured such
as to increase setback of 50 feet thereby complying with
your statute as it relates to pools. This is a falrly
straight forward application. I'm here it answer any
questlons you may have.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The LWRP finds this consistent.
MR. ANDERSON: It's a miracle.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Keep going.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: CAC supports the application provided
the exis~ence of the dwe11ing be n9 closer than the
present lmprovement; patlo lmperVlOUS, pavers are not
impervious in their opinion, and there is no turf.
That's CAC'S comments.
Is there a drywell for the pool on your plans? we
would like to see a drywell for the pool.
MR. ANDERSON: okay.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And on the inlet side we would like to
Page 55
OCTMIN-Final
see that buffer to be increased to 15 feet all the way
around. some places it's more than 15 feet, but over on
the northern side by the bocci ball court we want to see
that increased by 15 feet, and wherever it's not, to just
increase it to 15 feet.
MR. ANDERSON: perfectly acceptable.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: YOU can do it with the same stuff you
have there. Just expand it. That's fine with us.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And to clarify it, that bocci ball court
o
61
is within 15 feet. we are not asking you remove the
bocci ball court. we are just saying take the buffer to
it. I just want to make sure that's on the record.
MR. ANDERSON: Right.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments?
(NO response.) Comments from the board? (NO response.)
I'll make a motion to close this.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the permit
of Suffolk Environmental consulting on behalf of vincent
and Eileen Flaherty to request a Wetland permit to
replace the existing wood decking off the eastern side of
the existing dwelling and southwestern section of the
existing garage with a stone paver patio; replace the
existing wood decking surrounding the existing swimming
pool with a stone paver patio; and construct a retaining
wall/pool fence around the perimeter, with the condition
that a dry well is placed for the pool and a 15-foot
non-turf buffer is maintained on the eastern side.
MR. ANDERSON: on the easterly bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you
TRUSTEE BERGEN: one question. The paver patio, will that
be pervious? CAC asked if it could be pervious.
MR. ANDERSON: It is pervious and sits on very course
sand.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you for clarifying. I have a
motion. DO I have a second?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, good night.
MR. JOHNSTON: David, no chain saws.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: Number 11. En-consultants on behalf of
Mary VanCott, requests a Wetland permit to remove and
replace in-place plus/minus 16 feet and plus/minus 4 foot
sections of existing timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead;
remove and replace In-place plus/minus ten foot and
page 56
OCTMIN-Final
plus/minus 48 foot sections of eXltlng bulkhead with
vinyl bulkhead to be raised 24 inches higher than
existing to match elevation of plus/minus 16 feet and
plus/minus four foot sections and adjacent bulkhead
o
62
(elevation plus/minus 6.5 foot MSL); backfill with
approximately 25 cubic yards clean sand fill to be
trucked in from an upland source; and construct a 4 foot
by 48 foot wood walk. Located: 4080 Wunneweta Road,
cutchogue.
IS there anyone here to speak on behalf of the
application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, En-Consultants on behalf of Mary
Vancott. It's a pretty straight forward application.
This actually ties into the Avolese bulkhead replacement,
the permit for which was extended earlier this evening.
If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.
TRUSTEE KING: Question. can we straighten out that
little JOG in that one corner were you meet up with the
neighbor? YOU know me, I like straight lines. What's
the purpose -- it's only like three feet. If we could
just tie right into the other bulkhead, right in line,
wouldn't that simplify things?
MR. HERMAN: If that 16-foot section were just constructed
slightly farther landward to tie into the Avolese
structure?
TRUSTEE KING: I think it would clean the whole thing up
pretty good, you know
MR. HERMAN: YOU are not the vancott's, are you?
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): NO.
MR. HERMAN: I mean -- I can ask them about it.
TRUSTEE KING: It would simplify the construction. It
would cost them a little less money
MR. HERMAN: It's a pretty small section. I mean, I can't
see why not. I mean, it is going to require, you would
have to excavate that bulkhead and you would have to
excavate and dredge behind it. I know you ordinarily like
to try to straighten these things out. I'm just thinking
it might be more trouble, really, than it's worth here.
TRUSTEE KING: It will have to be excavated any way.
MR. JOHNSTON: Did you already get your DEC permit?
MR. HERMAN: Are you kidding? NO. If you want to approve
it that way, and I can speak to them about it. I mean I
don't want to hold it off. But I just --
TRUSTEE KING: It's not a death wish either, for me. I
just think it would be a better job.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Without the option --
MR. HERMAN: I prefer to have the option, Jim. I don't
know if that, that does tie into the bulkhead and dock
Page 57
OCTMIN-Final
D
63
area for Avolese and I don't know if that serves as a
literally bulkhead purpose there for a boat or
something. I don't, I just, it wasn't something I
contemplated so I'm not sure I'm comfortable just saying
okay wi thout --
TRUSTEE KING: We can approve it as submitted with the
option or suggestion that it be straightened.
MR. HERMAN: Yes, that way I'll speak to them about it and
if they say, great idea, wish we had thought of it, then
I could give you a revised plan. Let's do that.
TRUSTEE KING: We'll do that. Any other comments on the
application? (NO response.) Anything from the board?
It was found consistent with LWRP. Field notes, you have
a ten-foot non-turf buffer. And no mowing behind that
ramp. There is a little ramp going down there; behind
the sail boat. This is just a note.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: We didn't say that.
TRUSTEE KING: Then Hilda wrote it in. Ten-foot, non-turf
buffer.
MR. HERMAN: There is ten-foot walkway.
TRUSTEE KING: Ten feet behind ramp, no mow.
TRUSTEE OICKERSON: we discussed it but I don't think --
that's what -- we were talking about it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: She put it under "conditions."
MR. HERMAN: what is the ramp you are talking about, Jim?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The old ramp.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's vegetated.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right below the sail boat.
MR. HERMAN: Where it lS sort of deteriorated.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are you familiar with what this property
was? This was James Rambo's headquarters years and years
ago and that's where they got all the materials down to
the water, down that ramp.
MR. HERMAN: That was not used. That's completely
vegetated. we are not doing any work over there.
TRUSTEE KING: Disregard my last statement.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: we were going to have you remove the
pilings but the baccharis is growing right through that.
MR. HERMAN: I know what you are talking about because I
had seen it on the survey originally and the surveyor
depicted it as if it was a ramp and I went back and said,
oh, my God, did they build a ramp in the middle of the
marsh since I took pictures there?
TRUSTEE KING: We do want to see a lO-foot non-turf buffer
page 58
OCTMIN-Final
o
64
along the disturbed area.
MR. HERMAN: okay.
TRUSTEE KING: And the Southold Advisory council supported
it with the condition of a drainage plan and 30-foot
non-turf buffer. That yard is not very big. Do you have
30 feet?
MR. HERMAN: I think a ten-foot buffer would be standard
for a bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we measured that existing return and
figured the buffer back to the existing return.
MR. WILDER: 30, with your advisement.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm comfortable with ten.
MR. HERMAN: I think everyone would like to go in the
direction of having everyone get rid of all their lawns
and all their yards, but I thlnk we should be consistent
with what the board requires for this standard project,
which is ten feet.
MR. WILDER: Can I address that?
TRUSTEE KING: Yes.
MR. WILDER: It takes 200 feet to clean the fertilizer and
pesticides and so forth.
MR. HERMAN: so convince the Town Board to pass
legislation that requires everybody who lives on the
water to get rid of their yards. If the town supports
that and votes all that back to office, we'll start
designing things that way. But until that, then I think
the board should be consistent with what they've asked
for.
TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? (No response.)
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: Motion to approve the application as
submitted, with a ten-foot non-turf buffer behind the new
construction; with the option and suggestion that, if
possible, straighten out that little Jog out to the
adjoining bulkhead of the neighbor. That, in my opinion,
would make a better job of it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 12, En-consultants on behalf of
Joann walker requests a wetland permit to remove the
existing patio and pergola; construct a two-story and two
one-story additions to the existing one-family dwelling;
page 59
OCTMIN-Final
D
65
construct concrete patio, in-ground swimming pool, hot
tub, pool patio, pool fence and outside shower; and
install drainage system of drywells. Located at 290 Town
Harbor Terrace, 50uthold.
IS anyone here to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, En-consultants, on behalf of the
applicant Joann walker.
The project is as described. I had a little bit of
communication with Jill about the possibility of
relocating the pool landward of where it is and I think,
you know, perhaps some sort of modification would be
agreeable, but I did want to address a couple of things
and Jill, I apologize, I actually forgot that I wanted to
speak about this when I communicated back with you
today.
This is a project which has received variance
approval from the zoning board for structures less than
75-feet from the bulkhead. It's also a project that
would be entirely beyond this board's jurisdiction as it
existed a year ago. All of the structures are more than
100 feet from wetlands. I think only through a very
broad interpretation of a bluff is this application even
before you tonight.
I think that when the board amended its code to
include bluff as part of the wetlands definition, that
this project, and I discussed this with Jim already, is
not really what you had in mind.
This is a slope. There is a change in elevation.
But even as you go on the adjacent parcel, to the north
or to the northeast, this elevation rolls down pretty
quickly to the bay. And I think it is arguable, if the
client wanted to take the time and make a big enough
stink about it as to whether this application is really
being properly heard.
NOw, I can't say this for certain, because I'm not
sure what the building department interpretation was, but
if the building department had been interpreting this as
a bluff, all of this would also have required variances
for the lOa-foot press the bluff setback, and they didn't
require any set variances. so it is possible, although I
didn't research it with the building inspector, that this
board has determined this to be a bluff while the
Building Department did not, which creates sort of
o
66
internal problems in and of itself.
so, I would just like the board to take that into
page 60
OCTMIN-Final
consideration, when looking at this application tonight,
in terms of how it's been designed. particularly because
the pool and the patio were specifically designed to stay
landward of the current seaward extension of the rest of
the structures, which I think was one of the conditions
of one of the prior permits that was issued. So we did
sort of take all these things into account, the
contractor and the designer did, during the plan
preparations, to stay more than 100 feet from wetlands,
to stay behind the existing structure and yet here we
still are in front of the board asking for a permit
whereas a non-jurisdiction letter had just been granted
by this board two years ago.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I hear what you are saying. What Jim
and I talked about when we went out there again, is if
you can move one section of the pool back ten feet, the
"L" part, you could leaven you don't have to move that
back
MR. HERMAN: You are talking about this portion that
extends ten feet beyond the rest of the pool.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, so the "L" part can stay where it
is.
MR. HERMAN: well, you lose the "L." It would have to be
translated to this side and you would push this portion
back.
MR. ZIZZI: Can I speak? The whole vanishing edge, in
order to have the vanishing edge it has to be an area to
take the water or we have to bury surge tanks under the
ground. And if we move it back, we lose that whole "L"
shape back to the house because we need five feet
addition just for the surge tank which goes into that
"L." So we held it back in the principle structure to
take that into consideration. In fact Gale wickham had
handled this case two years ago and I think the biggest
issue at that time was we had maintained 64 feet from the
hardened structure that is the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Accordin9 to the zoning board.
MR. ZIZZI: Right, the zonlng board. so that's where we
stayed. So it does cause, actually, a redesign of the
whole pool. we would not have the ability to have the
"L" shape to the back
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: what does the rest of the board feel,
D
67
given
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could interrupt for a second. This
was found inconsistent under the LWRP because of the
proposed swimming pool and associated structure from the
top of the bluff of 17 feet.
Again, he's using the term bluff. And, again, he's
finding it inconsistent because of the proximity of the
page 61
OCTMIN-Final
pool to let's say the water. So what has been proposed
here would help bring this into consistency
MR. HERMAN: well, I don't think -- it doesn't sound like
he's finding an inconsistency because of the proximity of
the water but because of the proximity of the bluff.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: The top of the bluff is 17 feet. The
minimum setback is 100 feet from the bluff.
MR. HERMAN: That number is actually not correct.
TRUSTEE KING: It doesn't sound right to me.
MR. HERMAN: It's 40.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I mean, I agree the 17 is off. I don't
think there is any need to argue over it. So it looks
here you have 64 from the wood bulkhead.
MR. HERMAN: It's 17 feet to the proposed hay bales.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't see anything on your plans to
address from the top of what you call a slope here. So,
again.
MR. HERMAN: If I was in a court proceeding offering
expert testimony, I would argue that this is not a bluff
and informally I would argue that it's not the type of
natural feature that this board intended to bring into
its jurisdiction if the structure is more than 100 feet
from wetlands. I mean, the way that "bluff" is being
interpreted, to me is there is nothing in the revised
wetlands code that indicates what kind of projects will
or won't come before you that have any sort of elevation
to them.
In other words, if I have a step up of six feet, is
the LWRP czar going to decide that that is a bluff? I
mean, is it at ten feet? In other words, at what point
-- this is an elevation of 16 feet whereas the bluff
restoration projects you have before you tonight are at
70 or 80 feet.
so at what elevation is the town, and it's got to be
the planning Board, Trustees and the Building Department,
at what elevation is the town consistently going to
decide something is a bluff? Because I have a feeling if
D
68
we were to represent the neighbor to the north or two
doors down, this would not be in front of you. Because
it's almost no elevation rise at all.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could continue. CAC supports the
application with the condition of 20-foot, non-turf
buffer in the entire bank be planted with native
species. I want to get that in because that had not been
put in yet.
Jim, I understand you have an idea?
TRUSTEE KING: I thought a ten-foot buffer given that side
where it's going down.
MR. HERMAN: I would -- I think that would be agreeable.
page 62
OCTMIN-Final
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I also shared the concern of the side
going down because now everything drains down right to
the top of the bulkhead anyhow. so if we could
revegetate that bluff native spaces and a ten-foot
non-turf buffer, that would address the inconsistency
issue.
MR. HERMAN: I think that's agreeable. I think perhaps, I
mean, if the board would be lnclined to allow us to
maintain the pool in its current location as Mr. zizzi
described, we would go to a IS-foot buffer to try to
compensate for some of that additional extension. And I
think, consistent with what this gentleman said, although
we could argue the 200 foot or whatever all night, I
think it's probably more important to have an additional
five feet of buffer than to set a pool edge, vanishing or
not, five feet closer or further when you are already
talking about something that is more than 100 feet from
the water.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Makes sense.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Any other comments from
anybody in the audience? (NO response.) Any comments
from the board? (NO response.)
IS the board then supporting the addition to the
buffer from ten to IS foot and leaving the pool as per
the plan?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm fine with that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Everybody else okay with that?
(Trustees respond in the affirmative.)
I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Do I hear
a second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES.
D
69
I make a motion to approve En-consultants on behalf
of Joann walker for the permit as described, with the
inclusion of gutters, drywells, containing the roof
runoff.
MR. HERMAN: Those are already on the plan and there is
the indicated drywell for the pool as well.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: And just like in the plan there is a row
of staked hay bales with silt retention screen and we add
a IS-foot non-turf buffer with what is designated right
now top of slope landward and that the slope turn into
the buffer also, planted with native species.
MR. HERMAN: I don't recall off the top of my head what
the condition of that bluff is, but if there are areas
that require supplemental plantings, I don't see why that
would be a problem. It would be continue to be maintain
as a buffer anyway.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do I hear a second to that?
page 63
OCTMIN-Final
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES.
MR. HERMAN: Thank you, I appreciate the board working
with us on that.
TRUSTEE KING: I would like to back and reopen #11 for a
comment. I missed the LWRP recommended silk screening
in-place during construction.
MR. HERMAN: I'm sorry, for which?
TRUSTEE KING: VanCott.
MR. HERMAN: There is no dredging. I don't think there is
any incidental dredging proposed for this project.
TRUSTEE KING: I'm just putting on the record what they
recommend. They recommend the installation of a silt
zone during construction to minimize damage --
MR. HERMAN: If the board wants it, they can install it.
It's not ordinarily installed without dredgin~ because
there should not be any, but I don't see why lt would be
objectionable. It's simple enough for the contractor to
install.
TRUSTEE KING: (continuing) during construction of the
bu 1 khead.
That was the only comment. Make a motion to
reclose.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
MR. HERMAN: Thank you.
o
70
RESOLUTIONS
TRUSTEE KING: we have some resolution here.
Number one of the Resolutions. Rescind resolution of
September 20, 2006 of Catherine Mesiano, Inc., on behalf
of Mary zupa to amend permit 5636 to construct a 12-foot
extension to the existing return at the northwest end of
the low-sill bulkhead and replace 20 cubic yards of clean
fill. Located at 580 Basin Road, southold.
Two is a new resolution.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: second resolution is Catherine Mesiano on
behalf of Mary zupa requests an amendment to permit 5636
to include the ten-foot as-built return and a proposed
12-foot extension to the as-built return at the
northwestern end of the low-sill bulkhead and replace 20
cubic yards of clean fill. Located: 580 Basin Road,
southold.
And I think we should add on to this when the
extension is built they should recover the sand that
spills over the seaward end of the bulkhead and also
page 64
OCTMIN-Final
recover that to use as backfill and that slope land of
the rugosa bulkhead be re-graded to make it a more gentle
slope and replant it.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: IS that approximately 20 cubic yards
you'll recover? IS that --
TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it's that much. But if they
recover that sand low-sill and re-grade that slope to
make it more gentle, they'll probably have enough fill.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm saying there is only ten cubic yards
and they are asking for 20-cubic yards. we should
stipulate how much they recover from that.
TRUSTEE KING: It's difficult to figure.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You know what I'm saying?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did it say not to exceed so many cubic
or minimum or a maximum?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Can you give a minimum or maximum
amount?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: we don't want to turn this into a
dredging project.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: unless we
TRUSTEE KING: why don't we
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think we
just leave it alone.
leave it alone.
are better off just leaving it
o
71
as it reads. I agree.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second that. Again.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In reality, some of it will be recovered
anyway during construction, don't you think?
TRUSTEE KING: No, because they are not going near the
seaward side of the bulkhead. Maybe we could say if they
re-grade that slope, that drops off over there, that's
what caused that all to go down. If they could re-grade
that slope to like a three or four to one slope and use
that excess material as backfill and add anything they
need to drain the, bring the level up rather than 20
cubic yards.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I like that idea better.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So re-grade the slope to four to one or
three to one?
TRUSTEE KING: At least three to one slope.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: okay.
TRUSTEE KING: And you use that as fill on the return.
Does that makes sense to everybody?
(Trustees respond in the affirmative).
SECRETARY STANDISH: In addition to the 20 cubic yards or
in 1 i eu of?
TRUSTEE KING: I would say in lieu of.
SECRETARY STANDISH: so they are not getting 20 cubic
yards clean fill?
TRUSTEE KING: NO.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON:
DO we have
Second.
page 65
a second?
OCTMIN-Final
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Three, rescind resolution dated May 17,
2006, of Julie Tsai, located at 310 Lake Drive,
Southold. Second?
TRUSTEE KING: Second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?
(Trustee King, Trustee Doherty, Trustee Bergen, AYE.
Trustee Dickerson, OPPOSED.)
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number four, adopt revised resolution
dated October 18, 2006, of Julie Tsai. The Board of
Trustees hereby rescind permit #6365 and the related
resolution of May 17, 2006, and hereby enact the
following resolution regarding the public hearing held at
its regular meeting on wednesday, May 17, 2006, regarding
the above matter.
WHEREAS, Robert Barratt on behalf of Julie Tsai applied
to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the
o
72
provlslons of Chapter 275 of the Southold Town code, the
Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold, application
dated October 7, 2005, and,
WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Southold
Town Conservation Advisory Council and to the Local
waterfront Revitalization Program Coordinator for their
findings and recommendations, and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Town Trustees
with respect to said application on May 17, 2006, at
which time all interested persons were given an
opportunity to be heard, and,
WHEREAS the board members have personally viewed and are
familiar with the premises in question and the
surrounding area, and,
WHEREAS, the Board has considered all the testimony and
documentation submitted concernin~ this application, and,
WHEREAS, the structure complies wlth the standards set
forth in chapter 275 of the Southold Town code,
WHEREAS, the above referenced lot is a legal building lot
previously approved by the Town of southold, and,
WHEREAS, the Local Waterfront Revitalization program
coordinator recommended the application be found
inconsistent due to the 100-foot setback as outlined in
chapter 275 of the Southold Town code, and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees considered the presence of
other homes and a commercial restaurant within close
proximity to the lot, and,
WHEREAS, the original application called for a two-story,
four-bedroom, single-family dwelling approximately
60'x3S' and driveway, and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees recognized the
environmental concerns of the area and in response to
Page 66
OCTMIN-Final
these concerns, si~nificantly downsized the structure to
a single story, 20 x45' house, required the structure to
be put on piles, required that no excavation shall take
place, that no re-grading be permitted, that extra fill
required for construction be strictly limited to the
requirements of the sanitary system and, resulted in
substantial reduction to the original proposal, and,
WHEREAS, all setbacks were maximlzed to include locating
the sanitary system out of the Trustees jurisdiction with
the exception of the septic tank, and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees maximized the
non-disturbance area, requiring a 50-foot non-disturbance
D
73
area adjacent to the wetlands, to remain natural and
undisturbed, and,
WHEREAS, the Conservation Advisory council recommended
approval considering the area had already been
compromised with construction of homes of similar or
greater square footage in the immediate area, and,
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the project as
proposed will not affect the health, safety and general
welfare of the people of the town,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Trustees have
mitigated all environmental and coastal concerns to the
maximum extent practicable and based upon the imposition
of Best Management Practice requirements referred to
above, as set forth in greater detail in the Trustees'
file on this application, the Board of Trustees deems the
proposed action, as modified, to be consistent with the
Local Waterfront Revitalization program pursuant to
chapter 268-5 of the Southold Town code, and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees
approve the application of Julie Tsai to construct a
45'x20' one-story, single-family dwelling on pilings with
an attached raised deck and sanitary system, with the
conditions of a 50-foot non-disturbance buffer, drywells
are installed to contain the roof run-off, a line of
staked hay bales and silt fence are installed prior to
construction and maintained during construction, they hat
bales are to be left in place post construction, pervious
driveway is to remain pervious, and all as depicted on
the survey prepared by Joseph A. Ingegno last dated May
28, 2006.
permit to construct and complete project will expire two
years from the date of this permit.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.
TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?
(Trustee King, Trustee Doherty, Trustee Bergen, AYE.
Trustee Dickerson, OPPOSED.)
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Five, Resolution to approve Southold
page 67
OCTMIN- Fi na 1
Town Trustees Dredging priority List 2006-07.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES.
TRUSTEE KING: I have a comment on that. Hang on a
second.
MR. JOHNSTON: DO you have that vote?
TRUSTEE KING: Number ten, Deep Hole Creek. Can we put a
o
74
little addition there "above intertidal to the west" as a
possibility to put the dredge spoils?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: If the DEC, my understanding is DEC is
amending this so that, amending their conditions, so that
if it is above intertidal it can't be any vegetation at
all, also. So it is still as per DEC.
TRUSTEE KING: That's my suggestion, if it could be put
above the high tide mark but not in vegetation, then it
could be done.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are the other board members okay with
that?
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, fine.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Sure.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It will be whatever DEC says anyway.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay, so I'll hand you a copy of that so
you have that.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: So can I have a second?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second.
TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES.
SECRETARY STANDISH: You approved the dredging list?
TRUSTEE BERGEN: I made a motion. Peggy second.
unanimous approved.
SECRETARY STANDISH: The way it was written except for
number ten, which will be as per DEC or above intertidal
to the west. That's Deep Hole Creek.
1. Jockey creek Spur, on southern shoreline of Jockey
Creek.
2. cedar Beach Inlet, as per DEC permit or downdrift.
3. Little Creek, downdrift to North.
4. school House creek, as per DEC permit or downdrift to
North.
5. Budds Pond (Mill creek), shur Island.
6. Richmond creek, as per DEC permit or downdrift to
East.
7 corey creek, as per DEC permit or downdrift to West.
8. James creek to include newly approved extension, as
per DEC or East.
g. Brushes creek, as DEC or West.
10. Deep Hole creek, as per DEC or above intertidal to
West.
11. wickham creek, as per DEC or in upper dune area to
West.
page 68
OCTMIN-Final
12. Mudd creek, as per DEC or above intertidal to West.
13. west creek, as per DEC or to East.
o
75
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Motion to close the regular meeting.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: second.
TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES.
(The time noted is 9:51 PM.)
RECEIV<:Dp.-~","
/1:1:>~n1
-">'" 1 >;
:J', I, L ~
{,~{lr;~w'!J",
Souilould T('I';11 Clerk
Page 69